DCI CAP CLARIFICATION PATCH 81

[chise2]

I should also like to point out to everyone: These DCI/HLD are bad changes yes. But keep in mind how many, including prominent PvPers, supported them in principle until actual numbers were released. To me this means there's not universal agreement that the system shouldn't be touched at all. That's an important distinction to make.

And further: Yes, these are bad changes, but when we exaggerate how bad they are, as many are doing, we contribute to an atmosphere wherein making fine distinctions is difficult, and that hurts us, and the game, long-term. Not every bad idea is equally bad. There's game-breaking ideas (the initial draft of the stamina and armor changes), and there's ideas that are bad, there's ideas that hurt specific templates or playstyles that may not be bad objectively, there's ideas that are not bad per se but are just too much, etc. This stuff is just a bad idea. Not catastrophic. Just bad.

There's categories, there's levels, there's distinctions. Let's not flip the **** out over everything. Let's not cry the sky is falling when it's merely raining hard. Let's say the sky is falling when the sky is falling, and when it's just raining hard say it's raining hard.

-Galen's player

Yeah good point it doesn;t help to exaggerate. The hld/dci are terrible but they are not gamebreaking like the stamina changes were. Also yeah at first I supported the HLD changes for the most part though I thought 55% was a little too high. But after Bleak explained how it is actually supposed to work. Well I was like ok that makes no sense lol! I think someone suggested on this thread that dci should not be able to go over 45 or something like that. Or in other words that you shouldn;t be able to overcap to 70 so when your hit with hld your still at 45. I think the system should not reconize a number over 45 so even if you over cap it will still see you as at the cap of 45. But some might disagree lol. Either way there is better solutions then what the devteam has come up with.

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

Yeah cut Virem a break already. He spends hrs in the laboratory making crazy suits. Lets not add more hrs to the required planning needed for good suits. The refinement is a cool idea but keep it simple. There are plenty of good ideas from ppl like Cetric for adding bonuses to current unused armor.

Hrmmm, how good of a suit do you need to spam "all kill" ??

 

[KLOMP]

I am deliberately avoiding the temptation to fall into the boobytrap of "Aww these changes aren't THAT bad, they don't cripple and ruin UO like the stamina thing would have!"

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

My current idea for an alternative to the HLD/DCI changes.

• Leave HLD as is.
• In addition to the stamina damage absorption, give non-medable armor an increased DCI cap but only to 60.
• 3 extra per piece of plate. 2 extra for each piece of chain, ring. 1 extra for each piece studded leather.
• (Toss in gargoyle and elf equivalents other than wood; wood will have stamina absorption, presumably, and also has the stuff it has currently, it will remain the prime choice for Sampires.)
• Let the player decide how the character's going to reach the new cap.
• On a relate note: Remove the LMC thing....It's along the same lines as the DCI change: Asking us to do too much counter-intuitive math.
• On an unrelate note: Don't put elf moves on human weapons *chuckles* (That's bugging me more and more!)
• PvM-only damage absorption for plate pieces, 3% per piece, to max total of 15% (thus providing an alternative to Swamp Dragons without nerfing them, save for the Chief P's Dragon).

-Galen's player

 

[KLOMP]

I disagree. I have always found it is easier to come to the table with something to start the discussion, rather than start with "a blank sheet of paper". It is an easier/faster method of getting meaningful feedback, since it shows initiative and gives you discussion points to work from (less "spinning your wheels"). This is especially evident with complex/involved topics such as this. It eliminates alot of redundant work by people who have similar ideas (generally the majority).

This is software development, they don't code this stuff and then write it down, they prepare a document and then code to its specifications. All I'm saying is that they can insert an intermediary step where they post the document before they begin to code, and wait to see if it makes people say things like:

"wtf... now im lost. going away for a while lol"
"Why? Why make these changes?"
"this is this is just messed up."
"This example doesn't make any bloody sense at all."
"WHAT ARE YOU EVEN PUTTING IT IN THE GAME FOR?"
"This is a bad idea."
"Cease and Desist"
"God I hate this game so much."

And then if it does, see, they can make whatever feedback changes they were going to make without having had to code anything first.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

My current idea for an alternative to the HLD/DCI changes.

• Leave HLD as is.
• In addition to the stamina damage absorption, give non-medable armor an increased DCI cap but only to 60.
• 3 extra per piece of plate. 2 extra for each piece of chain, ring. 1 extra for each piece studded leather.
• (Toss in gargoyle and elf equivalents other than wood; wood will have stamina absorption, presumably, and also has the stuff it has currently, it will remain the prime choice for Sampires.)
• Let the player decide how the character's going to reach the new cap.
• On a relate note: Remove the LMC thing....It's along the same lines as the DCI change: Asking us to do too much counter-intuitive math.
• On an unrelate note: Don't put elf moves on human weapons *chuckles* (That's bugging me more and more!)
• PvM-only damage absorption for plate pieces, 3% per piece, to max total of 15% (thus providing an alternative to Swamp Dragons without nerfing them, save for the Chief P's Dragon).

-Galen's player

If you want it to be more complicated:

• No DCI bonus for non-GM made armor.
• Lesser DCI bonus for Imbued armor (how's that for a tradeoff!).

OR:

• Have the greater DCI OR PvM damage absorption OR both apply ONLY to stuff that's been Refined (that way the new crafting mechanic is still in).

This is a little complicated but is way easier to explain than is the current Publish 81 HLD/DCI proposal.

-Galen's player

 

[KLOMP]

Lesser DCI bonus for Imbued armor (how's that for a tradeoff!).

Considering how easy it is to stack extra DCI and how sweet imbued armor is versus playing the runic lottery, not much of a tradeoff.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

Considering how easy it is to stack extra DCI and how sweet imbued armor is versus playing the runic lottery, not much of a tradeoff.

I was referring to the cap, not the mere existence of DCI.

I thought that'd be clear from the context.

The idea was tnat non-Imbued heavier armor can get you to a DCI cap of 60, and Imbued heavier armor to like 55 or so.

I actually didn't like this much but thought I'd throw it on for greater complexity....But complexity that at least is easier to explain than the current Publish 81 system that almost all of us are protesting.

-Galen's player

 

[Barry Gibb]

All I'm saying is that they can insert an intermediary step where they post the document before they begin to code,...

They did provide the documentation along with a playable test area to explore the changes in a more hands-on approach. I do not see that they could provide any more.

We are part of a review/test phase of the design process, not the initial development. We need SOMETHING to review and test. They provided that SOMETHING. You will always get quicker, specific feedback when you start with SOMETHING rather than NOTHING (as the "clean sheet" idoim implies). "Clean Sheet" approaches should be reserved for fresh, never attempted before goals. The changes to the initial procuct will be swifter, as the core of the work has been done.

If they came to us with nothing, there would be alot of the same "blah,blah,blah" you mentioned, plenty of wheel spinning, and Too Many Chiefs. All parties would have left the discussion with nothing (other than frustration). In my experience, they have the right approach for this publish.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Barry Gibb]

My current idea for an alternative to the HLD/DCI changes.

• Leave HLD as is.

HLD needs to be changed to be always effective (to some degree). With DCI overcapping, you can completely ignore HLD. They are on the right track with the changes to HLD (reducing the target's DCI by 55%), by making it percentile based rather than a flat value. The fault I see is that it is still possible to overcap DCI. Being able to eliminate this effect should not be allowed, just the ability to reduce the DCI Loss. The reduction comes from getting increased DCI through armor refinements (with a known trade-off).

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[chise2]

HLD needs to be changed to be always effective (to some degree). With DCI overcapping, you can completely ignore HLD. They are on the right track with the changes to HLD (reducing the target's DCI by 55%), by making it percentile based rather than a flat value. The fault I see is that it is still possible to overcap DCI. Being able to eliminate this effect should not be allowed, just the ability to reduce the DCI Loss. The reduction comes from getting increased DCI through armor refinements (with a known trade-off).

Stayin Alive,

BG

I agree though I donlt agree with how the devteam has done is so far this publish. It is just a complicated mess that really doesn;t make sense.

 

[KLOMP]

I was referring to the cap, not the mere existence of DCI.

I thought that'd be clear from the context.

The idea was tnat non-Imbued heavier armor can get you to a DCI cap of 60, and Imbued heavier armor to like 55 or so.

I actually didn't like this much but thought I'd throw it on for greater complexity....But complexity that at least is easier to explain than the current Publish 81 system that almost all of us are protesting.

-Galen's player

Yeah my bad.

Anyway, I'm pretty much shouted out on this again, at least until the next set of notes turns up. They just need to realize that they cannot afford ANYTHING but a home run with this publish. They absolutely CANNOT afford their usual level of proficiency, where they cram some hamfisted or ill-balanced system into the game and then we all smile and nod and never play it.

This can't be like the ephemeral items nobody uses, or Charybdis whom nobody fights, or the revamped dungeon gimmicks nobody cares about after a week, or the epiphany armor nobody wore. These are the very guts of the game they're sinking their hands into now, and if they mess things up in the "I don't play UO!" sort of way we're used to, the damage will be catastrophic.

You hear me devs? This can't be like the time you "fixed" factions and everyone quit playing factions. This is the whole game you're taking into your hands.

 

[virem]

I had this armrest is my car, and it was over-engineered to go up, click in its spot, go down one notch, then go down another, and another, over and over. Problem is, it broke in the up spot. I really wished my armrest was just made simple after that...

................. why is this so difficult. Just make it so DCI can't be overcapped... christ.

 

[Sauteed Onion]

I had this armrest is my car, and it was over-engineered to go up, click in its spot, go down one notch, then go down another, and another, over and over. Problem is, it broke in the up spot. I really wished my armrest was just made simple after that...

................. why is this so difficult. Just make it so DCI can't be overcapped... christ.

But but.. How can it be over engineered and convoluted then?

 

[SpellBreaker]

However, after spending about a day to read through all that posts related to that publish, I'm a bit sad.

Crowen,
Thank you so much for taking the time to post. We really enjoyed your perspective and my wife and I are in agreement with you on nearly all the key points you made.


Personal Note -
Like many of you we have been playing for over 15 years and its just devastating/heart breaking to see this game in the low player count condition it is in. Remember when every shard was so packed you could not even place a blue tent? That was crazy fun and a whole new world wasn't it.


Spell Breaker

 

[KLOMP]

Like many of you we have been playing for over 15 years and its just devastating/heart breaking to see this game in the low player count condition it is in. Remember when every shard was so packed you could not even place a blue tent? That was crazy fun and a whole new world wasn't it.

Man people are way too emo over stuff like this.

Pretty much every game anywhere near the age of UO has merged servers by now, not because of any particular failing on their part, but just because they're old. Everquest merged servers years and years ago. I don't know what Asheron's Call did, but they're still trucking along with a fraction of UO's playerbase. But UO can't merge shards the way most games merge servers, because people would lose their houses, so here we are.

Enjoy the big huge house you get to place, or move to Atlantic. *shrug*

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

Yeah my bad.

Anyway, I'm pretty much shouted out on this again, at least until the next set of notes turns up. They just need to realize that they cannot afford ANYTHING but a home run with this publish. They absolutely CANNOT afford their usual level of proficiency, where they cram some hamfisted or ill-balanced system into the game and then we all smile and nod and never play it.

This can't be like the ephemeral items nobody uses, or Charybdis whom nobody fights, or the revamped dungeon gimmicks nobody cares about after a week, or the epiphany armor nobody wore. These are the very guts of the game they're sinking their hands into now, and if they mess things up in the "I don't play UO!" sort of way we're used to, the damage will be catastrophic.

You hear me devs? This can't be like the time you "fixed" factions and everyone quit playing factions. This is the whole game you're taking into your hands.

I am sorry KLOMP but based upon your posts in this thread alone you have re-defined what it is to be a drama queen

 

[KLOMP]

I am sorry KLOMP but based upon your posts in this thread alone you have re-defined what it is to be a drama queen

Bite me. There's a difference between flipping your wig when the dev team that murdered factions and thought ephemeral items were a good idea starts posting insane changes to core game systems, and just being emo that an ancient sprite-based MMO doesn't have the same population it did during the Clinton Administration.

 

[hamburger]

Hi guys, I took a stab at running some numbers based on the information provided (rounding might be off). Could someone verify the calcs please? This assumes 120 wep skill and max HCI of the attacker.

Separately, was hoping someone could take this to the next step and start calculting average damage taken over lets say a # of swings taken over the course of a fight. Something worst case scenario like where you are constantly being swung/shot at by an effective 1.25/1.5s weapon (after SSI and stam), 50 hit lightning/fireball and or velocity, 30 or 50 hld (m&S or wep), max pvp DI, and a comp or glaive. E.g. 45 max dci / 70 worn dci, first swing damage is 50% (chance to get hit) * (mid point of dmg range + 50% hit effect), then calculating the next swing average damage taken with or without HLD hitting, and so forth until you hit like lets say 10 swings. There will probably be an optimal max dci / worn dci setup (in a worst case scenario), but currently we havent been given the negative impact of the armor refinement, aside from the imbuing intensity/mods the DCI will take on armor pieces. DEVS PLEASE PROVIDE MORE INFO ON THIS.

That being said, this is getting far to complicated and I will probably just suit up with 45 max dci / 70 worn dci and be happy with a 50/50 roll, especially in light of the changes to disarm.

Thanks all