Concern about level balancing


Pathfinder Online


I've been reading a lot about Pathfinder Online and the developer's ideas about balancing the levels. A level 5 won't be that much lower than a level 15 and whatnot, but this concerns me greatly. Seeing as it's supposed to take 2.5 years to get to capstone, I believe there should be a huge difference between those two. That level five should be massacred by the level 15. It's only logical because that level 15 has spent MUCH more time dedicated so far to the game and training.

It is a great idea that the developers want to keep everyone useful and want you to be able to play with your friends at any level, but I believe that can only go so far. I don't want to train a wizard to cap if a younger wizard is going to be just as effective.

On a side note, I'm wondering how they'll make spells and wizards. I'd be very happy if they made friendly fire with spells, but make the spells incredibly powerful. Having a wizard should be a threat (to and extent) but also make them have to think strategically. I like PnP versions of wizards to where they have spells per day and those spells are powerful. A level 20 wizard should be feared.

Goblin Squad Member

CoopTang wrote:
That level five should be massacred by the level 15.

I think that will probably happen most of the time, because the level 15 will also have access to better gear, and will probably have developed the real tactical skills, while the Level 5 will probably still be learning how to play, and will have access to fewer options.

However, as the Level 5 grows in absolute terms, the relative power level difference will shrink substantially.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CoopTang wrote:

I've been reading a lot about Pathfinder Online and the developer's ideas about balancing the levels. A level 5 won't be that much lower than a level 15 and whatnot, but this concerns me greatly. Seeing as it's supposed to take 2.5 years to get to capstone, I believe there should be a huge difference between those two. That level five should be massacred by the level 15. It's only logical because that level 15 has spent MUCH more time dedicated so far to the game and training.

It is a great idea that the developers want to keep everyone useful and want you to be able to play with your friends at any level, but I believe that can only go so far. I don't want to train a wizard to cap if a younger wizard is going to be just as effective.

On a side note, I'm wondering how they'll make spells and wizards. I'd be very happy if they made friendly fire with spells, but make the spells incredibly powerful. Having a wizard should be a threat (to and extent) but also make them have to think strategically. I like PnP versions of wizards to where they have spells per day and those spells are powerful. A level 20 wizard should be feared.

The logical extension of that (in a PvP focused game) is that 2 years after the game launches, there are no more new players joining. Because no one is going to have fun being a punching bag for 2 years while waiting to be a viable combatant.

The higher level character WILL be more powefull then the lower level one....and will probably, MOST OF THE TIME, come out on top in a fight.

The difference is that in PFO, the difference in the scale of power levels between the lower level and higher level players won't be so vast that the battle is a forgone conclusion. If the lower level player plays smart and is lucky, they have a CHANCE to be victorious....and that's the way it should be (IMO).

You just can't have a viable PvP focused game without allowing for that.

Goblin Squad Member

Another thing to keep in mind is that most PFO fights will probably come down to sheer numbers - the side with the most players will usually win.

The goal of balancing the relative power level is to ensure that one level 20 character isn't capable of single-handedly taking out 3 or 4 level 15 characters.

Goblin Squad Member

The game has to be leveled out somewhat reasonably. If the barrier to entry is 2.5 years, this game will see no to negative growth.

The barrier to entry has to be completed within one month, if not quicker , and put the player on a competitive level with everyone else. I really hope the game completely divorces the mentality that if you play more you deserve to win. A seasoned MMO veteran should be able to come into the game a year after release, and after passing the barrier, stomp people that have been here since launch but PFO is their first MMO. The vet has spent years developing thought processes that help them identify the best course of action quicker than 'mmo newbies'

The game will give more options to you as you progress, but i'm hoping it will follow a system like Global Agenda(at release), where you get a handful of new weapon options, but they are all balanced with negative and positive effects.


I disagree, Valkenr. Eve Online rewards players for time spent and it takes several years to gain all the skills. Now, you can gain access to a battleship, for example, in just a couple weeks easy but you're still going to be wiped out by those with skill training that someone who's invested multiple years into the game would have.

So, if PFO makes available those items which are also used by high level players then I think things are even. However, the same item in the higher level players hands should be much more deadly, in terms of combat.

Besides, the model of the "mmo veteran" needs to be smashed up a bit, imo.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a tricky proposition to be sure. It's a completely different genre, but one game that did a decent job with this (IMO) was WWII-Online.

In WWII-Online, with infantry you start out playing a Rifleman. Now functionaly there is no difference betweed a Day 1 Rifleman and a Rifleman that's being playing by a 10 year veteran. It all comes down to Player Skill/Knowledge. A Rifleman can also kill any other Infantry character in the game.

As you progress, the Infantry game opens up the option to switch into different sorts of infantry types (SMG, LMG, Sniper, etc). They aren't really any more powerfull then the Rifleman overall...but they play different sub-roles within the infantry game....they are more specialized in thier individual functions.

An SMG, for example, is a close assault specialist. They don't have the range of the Rifleman, but they are highly mobile and can put alot of firepower in at close range.

The LMG is the supression fire specialist, it has around the same (effective) range as the rifle but it puts out a high volume of fire into an area. It can be used to lock down a particular spot, but it's not nearly as mobile. You have to take the time to drop to the ground and setup the bipod to fire it effectively.

The Sniper is the long range specialist. It can kill enemy infantry at a longer range then any other infantry weapon in the game...but it lacks situational awareness and responsiveness...making it an unsuited weapon for doing assaults with. You need to look through the scope to fire the weapon, which limits your field of vision and means you take a little time to aquire a target....making it tough to deal with enemies close in and moving rapidly.

Thing is ALL of these weapons....including the basic rifle....are important roles in the infantry game. It's the side that combines them and uses that combination effectively....that wins battles.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The question therefore is not "can I win against an opponent 10 Levels above me" but instead "can I contribute meaningfully to a fight between combatants who are 10 levels above me".

This isn't a solo game. If you attack someone 10 Levels above you, he can make a lot of mistakes and still likely win which is fine just as long as he does not obliterate you without having to pause.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MicMan wrote:

The question therefore is not "can I win against an opponent 10 Levels above me" but instead "can I contribute meaningfully to a fight between combatants who are 10 levels above me".

This isn't a solo game. If you attack someone 10 Levels above you, he can make a lot of mistakes and still likely win which is fine just as long as he does not obliterate you without having to pause.

There was one day I was at a wrestling tournament that I was put up against an opponent who sat there and talked to me about all the cool wrestling moves he knew and all the people he had beat with them. It was fairly late in the day in the tournament and I was pretty tired. He got me very worked up about how difficult of an opponent he was going to be and how skilled he was.

When the match finally started I was entirely psyched. My adrenaline was pumping and I was NOT ready for a long drawn out match with this guy. As soon as the match started I went flying at him and dove straight into one of the most basic moves. A high thigh. Its basically where you grab someone behind their knee, pull their knee up into their chest and plow them over. I could teach anyone on these forums how to do it in under two minutes.

That match lasted 15 seconds before I pinned him.

I wasn't an experienced wrestler. I had only been wrestling about a year and a half at that point. I am fairly strong but that isn't what won me the match. What won it for me was I was taking my opponent VERY seriously, and he made a mistake that allowed me to quickly execute a very basic move and follow it through to victory.

A master swordsman is cut just as easily by steel as someone picking up a blade for the first time. Unlike real life I don't think a single well-placed thrust should be the end of you. But I do object to the idea of an experienced player making A LOT if mistakes and still winning of their opponent makes few or none.

If you have the skills that come from having an older character, and the experience that allows you to take advantage of them to the fullest, and yet your opponent comes at you perfectly executing their simple skills while you flounder and fail with your advanced maneuvers you deserve to lose. Plain and simple.

That may not be standard MMO format but its a BETTER format. The idea you should be handed easy victories purely based of stats is disgusting to me, and a very easy position to take when there are less than 4500 avid followers of this game. I want to have to focus on defeating my enemies and be challenged in every battle.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
...I want to have to focus on defeating my enemies and be challenged in every battle.

That is unlike about every classic MMO I know. Level + Gear > all.

Now take that away and see what you have got:

A game where the resources I garner do not matter much at all.

PFO will be about resources and infrastructure so these must matter.

I think what you want (and your example shows this) is the "War as Sports" approach while I hope PFO will finally a game with the "War as War" approach because there are none so far at the classic fantasy MMO market.

War as Sports is always better portrayed in shooters without all the fuss about gear and levelling.

Goblin Squad Member

MicMan wrote:
Andius wrote:
...I want to have to focus on defeating my enemies and be challenged in every battle.

That is unlike about every classic MMO I know. Level + Gear > all.

Now take that away and see what you have got:

A game where the resources I garner do not matter much at all.

PFO will be about resources and infrastructure so these must matter.

I personally disagree in the implications that there is no room for middle ground. Gear/level can matter less without being useless. Personally I am hoping for a ratio along the lines of

20% skills/stats
20% gear/items
35% tactics (use of terrain/formation/surprise selecting the right tools etc...)
25% player skill/timing

It is possible for gear/level to influence a battle heavily, without single handedly winning it.

Comparing to the WoW model which is

40% level
40% gear
10% tactics
10% individual.

At which point a tactical genius who has perfectly mastered the game, vs a team of 2 day in beginners who bought a top geared account on eBay, victory is almost guaranteed to go to team ebay.

Goblin Squad Member

@MicMan, are you saying that "War as War" requires "Level + Gear > all"?

Or are you saying that "want[ing] to have to focus on defeating my enemies and be challenged in every battle" requires "War as Sports"?

I'm not sure I would agree with either.

I also don't agree that breaking the rule "Level + Gear > all" automatically results in "A game where the resources I garner do not matter much at all".

Not that I'd expect you to agree, but even in WoW the players generally claim that "player skill > all".

Goblin Squad Member

MicMan wrote:
Andius wrote:
...I want to have to focus on defeating my enemies and be challenged in every battle.

That is unlike about every classic MMO I know. Level + Gear > all.

Now take that away and see what you have got:

A game where the resources I garner do not matter much at all.

PFO will be about resources and infrastructure so these must matter.

I think what you want (and your example shows this) is the "War as Sports" approach while I hope PFO will finally a game with the "War as War" approach because there are none so far at the classic fantasy MMO market.

War as Sports is always better portrayed in shooters without all the fuss about gear and levelling.

I think the Developers have expressed the desire that this NOT be your typical MMO or play like your typical MMO. That is certainly a large part of my interest in it.

I would also note that the approach you describe for the typical MMO is Anthetical to the "War as War" approach...in War the 20 year veteran with the best equipment and training is just as vulnerable to a piece of flying lead as the guy grabbed of the street 5 minutes ago and handed a cheap rifle. A highly engineered Tiger tank can still be taken out by a $60 Bazooka, if caught at the right place from the right angle and distance.

The "War as War" scenerio is NOT about what can happen in a single encounter....it's about the law of averages and what happens in thousands upon thousands of encounters piled up over time. That's where your advantage in resources, infrastructure and organization come into play.... not about who can beat who in a single encounter.

The Romans weren't powerfull because individualy thier warriors were better then most of the barbarians they fought. If anything, the reverse was true.....They were powerfull because thier organization and resources and discipline meant that they WEREN'T just fighting a series of 1 on 1 duels versus thier opponents.

Ideally, a Day 1 "noob" (or at least a guy who has been playing for 6 months") should be able to take out a 10 year veteran under the right circumstances and with a bit of luck. But a horde of unorganized Day 1 "noobs" isn't going to have much chance against an established kingdom of 10 years over an EXTENDED campaign... that's where your infrastructure, resources and organization come into play.

Goblin Squad Member

MicMan wrote:
That is unlike about every classic MMO I know. Level + Gear > all.

There is a reason I spend so much time posting here rather than playing your classic MMOs. Because classic MMOs are not that great of a game format. The large interactive, persistent worlds with people to socialize with and the ability to build entire communities are. The grind and the entitlement attitude of older players is not.

MicMan wrote:

Now take that away and see what you have got:

A game where the resources I garner do not matter much at all.

PFO will be about resources and infrastructure so these must matter.

We already know PFO is not a Drop All Items on Death game. Already making players gear a minor factor in the struggle for resources. Player skill NEVER should be calculated into resources. So skills not giving enough bonus invalidating crafting and resources = false.

Skills should unlock new abilities. They shouldn't give you massive boosts to your health, or damage, or resource pool. It should be like a basic fighter has thrust, parry, and swing. An advanced fighter would have thrust, parry, swing, leg sweep, overhead smash, and a few more abilities your basic sword fighter doesn't have that can make them more powerful if used PROPERLY. Much like Ryan's guitar analogy in "The EVE Way" topic.

Gear and consumables should give some kind of stat bonuses but gear and consumables should NOT be restricted by level. The notion you need more training to use higher quality weapons and armor is laughable. If you hand someone a battered copper longsword, and a magical steel longsword they aren't going to look at the steel one and say. "I can't use this. I think I'll take the battered copper one." If anything it takes less skills to wield a higher quality weapon. While maneuvering in armor may take skill that is determined by the weight of the armor. Not its material and how finely it was made. Again, a finely made armor of a high grade material like mithril or dragonscales would be easier to move around in than rusty iron plate.

Beyond the realism, and the fact that it is more true to the D&D format its just a better model and creates a larger market for high quality gear.

But even if armorsmithing and weaponsmithing were removed from the game ENTIRELY. There would still be plenty of room to tie economics to war. What are your NPC guards equipped with? How thick are the walls on your player owned structures? How thick are the walls surrounding your settlement? What are you feeding and paying your guards with? What kind of siege weapons do you have? What do they use for ammo? What kind of navy do you have? What kind of weapons and ammo does it use?

These kind of questions leave PLENTY of room for money pits related to warfare.

MicMan wrote:

I think what you want (and your example shows this) is the "War as Sports" approach while I hope PFO will finally a game with the "War as War" approach because there are none so far at the classic fantasy MMO market.

War as Sports is always better portrayed in shooters without all the fuss about gear and levelling.

The last thing I want is war as sports. I have always viewed myself as more of a diplomat than a fighter so war as sports is not my thing. I love the economics and politics of warfare and firmly believe in people's right to get obliterated 500 well armed/trained soldiers vs. 10 poorly armed/trained bandits if they tick enough people off and don't keep their hideouts location secret enough.

I however don't believe that it is necessary to include massive imbalances in player strength based purely off stats and equipment in order to make war deeper than a sports match.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

A master swordsman is cut just as easily by steel as someone picking up a blade for the first time. Unlike real life I don't think a single well-placed thrust should be the end of you. But I do object to the idea of an experienced player making A LOT if mistakes and still winning of their opponent makes few or none.

If you have the skills that come from having an older character, and the experience that allows you to take advantage of them to the fullest, and yet your opponent comes at you perfectly executing their simple skills while you flounder and fail with your advanced maneuvers you deserve to lose. Plain and simple.

That may not be standard MMO format but its a BETTER format. The idea you should be handed easy victories purely based of stats is disgusting to me, and a very easy position to take when there are less than 4500 avid followers of this game. I want to have to focus on defeating my enemies and be challenged in every battle.

I agree with this 100%.

@MicMan, that is a very good point you make, however, they could also make "basic gear" non-trivial to acquire. Making a steel suit of plate is not a trivial endeavour for 99.999% of the world's population...even with power tools and modern tech. So while Gear + Level may not trump all in the traditional sense, a well geared (meaning all have at least basic gear) army will beat an equally trained one with no gear in a toe-to-toe battle. This is where production and manufacturing come in as important aspects...everyone should insure their army is well geared so when war does come, it is tactics + experience + skill that is most important.

Uber god-like gear should be extremely non-trivial to acquire.


It'd also be nice to see leather armor that is next to useless, because it really was. Leather armor stopped only the most glancing blows and even got ruined quickly with that. I'm not saying that is has to be that extreme but having non-magical +10 AC leather armor would just be absurd to me. At best it's +1 AC with a 75% chance to apply +5 DR versus slashing that hit but not by more than 5. Historically speaking, armor did very little to prevent death in a one on one battle. It was very useful in large scale battles where scatter shots rather than precise, aimed shots with a bow were the common place. I have yet to see a leather based armor not fail against a single, concerted strike.

Also, unless you're on par with an Olympic swimmer, you should probably sink if you're wearing full plate in a lake. :D

Goblin Squad Member

Okay, there are a few kinds of fights here: Short-term and long-term.

So far, everyone's been discussing short-term fights: How easy or hard it is to beat the enemy in front of you. Right now, it seems like skill and gear will only matter so much, and 3-4 level 5's stand a good chance of beating a level 15 if they can get the jump on him and know what they're doing. That's fine, I like that. Yes, the short-term fights are less about resources and more about tactics and skill, both in planning the fight beforehand and during. Please read my next paragraph before responding.

Then there's long-term fights. The bandit groups, border skirmishes, and outright warfare. That's where resources will matter. That's where that extra 5% effectiveness in combat really adds up. It matters little in a 1v1 fight, but in a 20-man skirmish, it can make or break. In a 200-man war, if those hopefully happen at some point, 5% extra damage is going to really add up. Plus, the richer group may not win the fight, but they're more than likely to win the war, as long as they're not idiots. If the poorer team takes even one major loss, they may not have the capital to repair and re-arm before the enemy is in their keep.

So skill and tactics will matter more in short-term, resources will matter more long-term, but both are important to a good player.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Concern about level balancing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online