Goblin Squad Member
|
<paraphrasing> Taunt sucks. Required Roles are bad. </paraphrasing>
Yep!
At the same time, MMO's avoid implimenting about 75 percent of the downsides that should apply with being the heavy armor guy...
I'll be unbelievably thrilled if PFO makes it a really bad idea for me to jump into water that's over my head if I'm wearing plate armor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
<paraphrasing> Taunt sucks. Required Roles are bad. </paraphrasing>Yep!
At the same time, MMO's avoid implimenting about 75 percent of the downsides that should apply with being the heavy armor guy...I'll be unbelievably thrilled if PFO makes it a really bad idea for me to jump into water that's over my head if I'm wearing plate armor.
I think Mel is talking about the MMO downsides not the P&P downsides. The cliche MMO armor pro's con's to armor are "You take 95% less damage, but you deal 5% as much damage as an offensively geared character" Which I agree, if we are going to scale that down to, you take 10-20% less damage and deal 80-90% as much damage, things will be nicer.
I do also agree, the P&P drawbacks for armor should all be in place, swimming, jumping, balancing, sneaking and spellcasting should all be penalized appropriately.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... if ... you take 10-20% less damage and deal 80-90% as much damage, things will be nicer.
That seems horribly wrong to me. I don't think you need to utterly nerf the effects of heavy armor and shields in order to solve this problem.
The problem is the Trinity, and its over-reliance on the Tank role, and creating an absolute requirement for a Healer role to support it, with everyone else being relegated to a simple DPS role.
The solution is not to make plate armor nearly useless.
As a Paladin in full plate armor with a sword and a shield, I should damn well be able to stand my ground and defend a position against orcs with swords a lot better than a rogue in leather armor. Not just 10-20% better.
In another situation, where the rogue doesn't have to hold a position, and can utilize his ability to dodge out of the way, and give ground in order to maintain his edge in maneuverability, then yeah, he should be able to withstand the attack of an orc with a sword just as well as I can as a Paladin by standing my ground.
But if we have to hold that position, you will need someone in heavy armor that is built to stand there and block attacks directly, rather than dodge/parry attacks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... if ... you take 10-20% less damage and deal 80-90% as much damage, things will be nicer.That seems horribly wrong to me. I don't think you need to utterly nerf the effects of heavy armor and shields in order to solve this problem.
The problem is the Trinity, and its over-reliance on the Tank role, and creating an absolute requirement for a Healer role to support it, with everyone else being relegated to a simple DPS role.
The solution is not to make plate armor nearly useless.
As a Paladin in full plate armor with a sword and a shield, I should damn well be able to stand my ground and defend a position against orcs with swords a lot better than a rogue in leather armor. Not just 10-20% better.
In another situation, where the rogue doesn't have to hold a position, and can utilize his ability to dodge out of the way, and give ground in order to maintain his edge in maneuverability, then yeah, he should be able to withstand the attack of an orc with a sword just as well as I can as a Paladin by standing my ground.
But if we have to hold that position, you will need someone in heavy armor that is built to stand there and block attacks directly, rather than dodge/parry attacks.
Well to some extent, I would say at the absolute most we should be looking at 2x as much damage reduction. I do believe though the idea of removing the trinity is exactly to lower the odds of situations where you "will need someone" of any specific types. Now situations where "It is more efficient" or "It is better" to have are one thing, but we are trying to avoid the situation where you Will need a tank.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... we are trying to avoid the situation where you Will need a tank.
I agree, and I'm not trying to argue that there should be a lot of situations where you will need a tank. In fact, now that I think about it, I realize you shouldn't even need a tank in this scenario. It should be possible for a mage to block the doorway with a spell.
But, consider the following three scenarios:
1. A Paladin in full plate armor with a sword and shield stands his ground to deal with a strong fighter with a two-handed sword.
2. A Rogue in leather armor with a sword and dagger stands his ground to deal with a strong fighter with a two-handed sword.
3. A Rogue in leather armor with a sword and dagger uses his advantage of maneuverability to deal with a strong fighter with a two-handed sword.
If you are arguing that the Paladin in Scenario 1 should only be 10-20% more effective than the Rogue in Scenario 2, then we are in utter and complete disagreement. To me, the Rogue in Scenario 2 is making a terrible decision, and should only be 10-20% as effective as the Paladin.
Likewise, if you are arguing that the Paladin in Scenario 1 should be 10-20% more effective than the Rogue in Scenario 3, then again we are in utter and complete disagreement, but for the opposite reason. To me, the Rogue in Scenario 3 should be 100% as effective as the Paladin in Scenario 1.
I believe you will agree with this, and that there was simply a failure on my part to effectively communicate to you previously.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just another thought...
Consider these additional scenarios:
4. A Rogue in leather armor with a sword and dagger stands his ground to deal with a weak fighter with a sword.
5. A Paladin in heavy armor with a sword and shield stands his ground to deal with a weak fighter with a sword.
I would argue that the Rogue in Scenario 4 and the Paladin in Scenario 5 should both be equally effective. The Rogue should be able to parry the weak fighter's blows until the cows come home, and the Paladin should be able to easily block them just as long.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the P&P game, armor (of any kind) does not offer damage reduction. The better the armor you have on just means you are that much harder to hit. You still take the full damage from a weapon if hit.
It would be kind of disappointing to see DR added to armor. For one reason DR is a barbarian class ability as you level up.
Just because you have heavy armor on does not mean you can take more damage. What determines if you can take more damage is your chosen archetype with the hit die and Con bonus.
I have never been in a role playing group where the "trinity" was discussed. Everyone does damage. Some classes have a better chance to hit than others.
If you venture into the story world I do not remember Drizzt ever putting on heavy plate armor. Nor Wulfgar. In fact, I'm not certain if Wulfgar wears armor at all. Yet, as a barbarian everyone would paint Wulfgar as the tank.
So, regardless of the roles that get constantly thrown around in this thread, some classes are better at combat than others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps it would be helpful to not imagine a role and then reverse engineer that, but to start a combat system from the ground up. In other words, not 'how to nerf the tank?' but what is a fun, challenging and executable system of combat? And I would add there's probably a quad, not a 'trinity'. Tank, Healer, Dps and Crowd Control. I liked being a Demonology Warlock in WOW 'cause you could do a little of each. Not enough to still play, tho.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps it would be helpful to not imagine a role and then reverse engineer that, but to start a combat system from the ground up. In other words, not 'how to nerf the tank?' but what is a fun, challenging and executable system of combat? And I would add there's probably a quad, not a 'trinity'. Tank, Healer, Dps and Crowd Control. I liked being a Demonology Warlock in WOW 'cause you could do a little of each. Not enough to still play, tho.
I agree with the statements earlier, tanking is just an overused universal method of crowd control in most games. Crowd control by definition is keeping an enemy busy or immobile rather than attacking what you don't want him to. Whether it is because he is stuck in a hold person spell, or swatting at the person he can do the least damage to, the concept is the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps it would be helpful to not imagine a role and then reverse engineer that, but to start a combat system from the ground up.
I'm not so sure. The whole origination of fantasy role-playing games is from our predecessors' attempts to fashion a system that would adequately model the kind of combat they already had in their minds, based on reading everything from Lord of the Rings to Le Morte D'Arthur.
If we end up with a model where Lancelot is only slightly better at toe-to-toe combat than Robin Hood, then we're in a very bad place.
In the P&P game, armor (of any kind) does not offer damage reduction. The better the armor you have on just means you are that much harder to hit. You still take the full damage from a weapon if hit.
... Yet, as a barbarian everyone would paint Wulfgar as the tank.
I think this is absolutely right, and how we get there is very important.
To me, the advantage of Heavy Armor + Shield is the ability to Block even the most powerful attacks.
A Barbarian is strong enough to Parry even the most powerful attacks from a strong fighter with a Two Handed Sword, as well as being able to Dodge very well due to the lack of restrictive armoring, and also being able to Block attacks with a small buckler.
A Rogue is able to Parry attacks from weaker opponents, or opponents with lighter weapons, and is also able to Dodge.
I would very much like to see a system that worked along those lines.
You also needs roles from the developer standpoint, to make the AI or encounter interesting and challenging versus just a random selection of targets. And whatever criteria is used, the trinity will re-invent itself, albeit under a new guise. Realistically, there is only so much a character can do in regards to attacks, defenses, and resistances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the P&P game, armor (of any kind) does not offer damage reduction. The better the armor you have on just means you are that much harder to hit. You still take the full damage from a weapon if hit.
It would be kind of disappointing to see DR added to armor. For one reason DR is a barbarian class ability as you level up.
Just because you have heavy armor on does not mean you can take more damage. What determines if you can take more damage is your chosen archetype with the hit die and Con bonus.
I have never been in a role playing group where the "trinity" was discussed. Everyone does damage. Some classes have a better chance to hit than others.
If you venture into the story world I do not remember Drizzt ever putting on heavy plate armor. Nor Wulfgar. In fact, I'm not certain if Wulfgar wears armor at all. Yet, as a barbarian everyone would paint Wulfgar as the tank.
So, regardless of the roles that get constantly thrown around in this thread, some classes are better at combat than others.
It's just a different way of achieving the same outcome...in fact I kinda think DnD's system has it reversed from what it probably should be.
Armors function is to prevent you from taking damage or reduce the amount of damage you take.
In DnD the model this by increasing the AC.... meaning that you are harder "to hit".... but DnD defines a "hit" as a blow that does damage damage to the target, not a blow that lands on the target without doing damage. So the guy in Full Plate in DnD is probably getting alot more blows landing on him...then the ones that actualy damage and DnD considers "hits".
Other systems use the reverse of that model...rather then using an AC to determine whether the target is hit. They use a Defensive Value to represent the targets ability to dodge, parry or otherwise represent the targets ability to prevent the blow from striking him. Armor doesn't factor into that equatuion AT ALL (or sometimes factors negatively if it restricts the targets movement) so the guy in full plate has the same effective chance to be hit as the guy in the lion-cloth. Instead they factor in armor as reducing the amount (or "soaking") of damage done to a character. So he guy in the loin-cloth and the guy in full plate get "hit" the same number of times...but when the guy in full plate gets hit his armor soaks up the first 5 points of damage.
The models are different but they are trying to represent the same general outcome....it takes more sword swings to kill a guy in full plate then it does to kill the same guy when he's wearing a loin-cloth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The models are different but they are trying to represent the same general outcome....it takes more sword swings to kill a guy in full plate then it does a guy in a loin-cloth.
True but I think the general concept is pretty accurate. In the real world at least in the case of weapons that are designed to slice or puncture, armor of all kinds does everything or nothing. A sword eitehr just reverberates your armor a bit, or the weapon has enough speed to completely slip past the armor and greatly injure you for what it always would have. To a lesser extent the trend exists in modern warfare, if you are shot wearing a bullet proof vest, you might get knocked over, and you might get the wind knocked out of you and a nasty bruise, but odds are if you could survive 1 shot to a vest you can survive 50 shots through a vest, while 1 shot that hits either a weak spot in the armor, or hits a limb or your head etc... does pretty much the same as it did if you weren't wearing armor. Turning it to a hit/miss scenerio.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So again, my response is, you limit the emergence of the trinity by stopping the feedback loop of the Tank. Don't give the Tank defenses far beyond that used by other classes, and don't present challenges that require those defenses.
Or. Don't let any one built have all defenses an order of magnitude above all other builds, OR don't have challenges that require that level of all defenses. Figure a roughly 3x value for full specialization: A fully specialized character working in their specialization should be as useful as three generalist characters; working outside their area of specialization, they should be worth one-third as much as a generalist characters. Anyone that isn't a one-trick pony will have a broader specialization that isn't quite so deep, and either a narrower or shallower set of weaknesses.
Don't build challenges based on who you think is going to fight them, or on what strategies you want to work against them. Build the challenges and let people develop the strategies to deal with them. If teamwork makes the challenge easier, either cookie-cutter optimum characters or specialized roles will develop. The goal should be to have every option available in character creation be effective at one of the roles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't build challenges based on who you think is going to fight them, or on what strategies you want to work against them. Build the challenges and let people develop the strategies to deal with them. If teamwork makes the challenge easier, either cookie-cutter optimum characters or specialized roles will develop. The goal should be to have every option available in character creation be effective at one of the roles.
This, I think the greatest pitfall in an MMO, is that they work backwards, they write the solution and then work the question to match it. In reality the challenge should just exist, in modules enemies do X attack, and are upset when X happens, or target people who appear to be wearing X etc... Much like the tactics written for enemies in a pathfinder module. Honestly I'd rather have enemies with X capabilities, just thrown about randomly, one day it might be possible with 4, the next it might take 6. The reason static solutions work, is because of static encounters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the P&P game, armor (of any kind) does not offer damage reduction. The better the armor you have on just means you are that much harder to hit. You still take the full damage from a weapon if hit.
... Yet, as a barbarian everyone would paint Wulfgar as the tank.
I think this is absolutely right, and how we get there is very important.
To me, the advantage of Heavy Armor + Shield is the ability to Block even the most powerful attacks.
A Barbarian is strong enough to Parry even the most powerful attacks from a strong fighter with a Two Handed Sword, as well as being able to Dodge very well due to the lack of restrictive armoring, and also being able to Block attacks with a small buckler.
A Rogue is able to Parry attacks from weaker opponents, or opponents with lighter weapons, and is also able to Dodge.
I would very much like to see a system that worked along those lines.
The way I've always modeled it (had a hobby of putting together homebrew PnP systems...probably like 50 percent of old school PnP'ers out there) was that there were 3 levels of things that determined a characters defensive ability in a fight.
Active Defenses - Like Parrying, Blocking with a Shield, Dodging, Faking out an Opponent. These things determine if the character gets "hit" or not (i.e. the opponent lands a blow on their body)
Passive Defenses - Like Armor or certain types of spells. These things absorb a certain amount (possibly all) of the damage done to the character WHEN they take a hit. In other words, if a rock lands on the characters back while they are sleeping will something cause it to do less damage then if the character were naked and had no spells on him.
Toughness - Hit Points, Constitution, Stamina. These things to determine how the character is affected WHEN they take damage. In other words If I hit Richard Simmons in the face with my fist...he'll probably fold like a house of cards. If I hit an NFL Defensive Lineman with the same ammount of force...If I'm lucky he'll just think a musquito bit him...if not, I better start running.
Different classes have different strengths and weaknesses in these areas. Which ones are which only start to matter when you think about different types of attacks that bypass one or another...or different things that can nullify one or more of those defenses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Active Defenses... determine if the character gets "hit"...
Passive Defenses... absorb a certain amount (possibly all) of the damage done to the character WHEN they take a hit...
Toughness... determine how the character is affected WHEN they take damage...
This makes sense to me. The Barbarian and Rogue concentrate on Active Defenses (not getting hit) while the Paladin focuses on Passive Defenses (not getting damaged when he gets hit).
The whole goal is to create a system that models our expectations based on the fantasies we've read or imagined.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The models are different but they are trying to represent the same general outcome....it takes more sword swings to kill a guy in full plate then it does a guy in a loin-cloth.True but I think the general concept is pretty accurate. In the real world at least in the case of weapons that are designed to slice or puncture, armor of all kinds does everything or nothing. A sword eitehr just reverberates your armor a bit, or the weapon has enough speed to completely slip past the armor and greatly injure you for what it always would have. To a lesser extent the trend exists in modern warfare, if you are shot wearing a bullet proof vest, you might get knocked over, and you might get the wind knocked out of you and a nasty bruise, but odds are if you could survive 1 shot to a vest you can survive 50 shots through a vest, while 1 shot that hits either a weak spot in the armor, or hits a limb or your head etc... does pretty much the same as it did if you weren't wearing armor. Turning it to a hit/miss scenerio.
I tend to disagree a bit...
It matters how much force a blow penetrates with. If you've ever seen things like weapon testing with ballistic gell or similar substances an important measure of the protective factor of any armor is how deeply the weapon penetrated into the armor (or in the case of blunt weapons, how much force was registered to the "body" beneath the protective layer). This makes a difference (depending upon location) a shallow flesh wound that you can easly walk off...or a mortal wound to a vital organ. Even non-penetrating blows from weapons are likely to do some concussive/shock damage.
For example, alot of people that end up getting shot with bullet-proof vests end up with broken ribs or other fractures. It's alot better then a sucking chest wound...but it's not neccesarly the sort of thing that you can get up and run a marathon after either.
Edit: The real interesting part is when you have weapons/attacks that have different sorts of qualities. For example something like an estoc probably isn't designed to do much more raw damage then a foil, but the estoc is designed to penetrate armor...while the foil just snaps. Now electrify the foil (say some sort of spell effect) and it doesn't need to penetrate to do damage, it just needs to land on the armor.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Pendant here: The only way that an armor layer can reduce 'force' is by permanently deforming or breaking. Typically ceramic armors are designed to break, while crystalline metal armors are designed to react elastically. A kevlar vest doesn't reduce the force of a blow by a noticeable amount, but the force of a bullet on the target is less than the force exerted on the shooter by the firearm. The advantage is that bullets don't damage mostly by force, but by penetration.
The other advantages of armor are deflection and distribution. A blow which would be fatal if delivered to the head might be distributed between the head and shoulders by a good helmet, or a blow to the center of the chest could be distributed across the entire torso by a stiff breastplate. A thrusting attack should glance off of well-designed plate armor, expending the energy into the environment instead of the target, even when the attack was strong enough and had a small enough cross-section to pierce the armor had it landed squarely.
A fully specialized character working in their specialization should be as useful as three generalist characters; working outside their area of specialization, they should be worth one-third as much as a generalist characters. Anyone that isn't a one-trick pony will have a broader specialization that isn't quite so deep, and either a narrower or shallower set of weaknesses.
So, allow extreme specialization at the cost of extreme vulnerability. For instance, the uber-tank can wade through the whole goblin army without a scratch, but could be taken out with the right spell. DPS aside, against the "scissors" character he would be invulnerable. Against a generalist he would actually be at a disadvantage.
Against a dragon, he would be immune to physical damage, but die immediately to any spell/breath effect. He would fill a niche role in PvP, and would be a liability in PvE. Or potentially fill a niche role there too, like the taunting mage sacrifice except in reverse--the kamikaze tank.
Could be an interesting way to make the tank problem self-regulating. I don't think this would lead back to the trinity either. Stack enough resist gear/spells on him, get enough people healing/buffing him, and you have a lot of wasted effort without taunt, and a dead raid wondering why this game is so hard. Hehe :)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My thoughts exactly- There should be no one character which is needed or even well-suited for every situation.
I would expect that a well-coordinated group of different specialists would beat an equally large group of generalists. With the x3 mulitplier as a base, a group of three generalists will have a total of 3 'effectiveness' in each category, while a group of 3 specialists will have a total of 3 2/3 (3 from the specialist in that category, and 1/3 each from the other two).
Below a certain size group, the generalists simply target the weakness of the specialists; once all the weaknesses have some cover, a group of generalists can't break the weak point.
To counter a group of diversified specialists, have a group of the same specialist. A few people need to soak/die from the portion of the opposing group strongest versus the monotyped group, but the number of the diversified group that are extremely vulnerable to the type being used will be greater than the number who are extremely effective.
To counter the single-type group, use either a type that is particularly effective versus that type, or a generalist group, who can attack and defend all types equally well. For hybrid groups, who have something between an even balance of all types and a complete inclusion of all types, a different hybrid group is the best counter. (A pack of wizards with a few rogues supporting them might be countered with several monks and a couple of clerics; the monks go after the wizards while the clerics disable the rogues.)
I generally agree but would prefer the system reward generalists a little more. I'm not sure I follow why a larger group would favor the specialists. But assuming it's true, it's the perfect reason why the specialist build should have a bit of a nerf--at least enough to make large scale fights an even match.
Maybe that's true of every type of specialist build, not just tanks. And maybe that's already built in to the skill system in the form of diminishing returns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I generally agree but would prefer the system reward generalists a little more. I'm not sure I follow why a larger group would favor the specialists. But assuming it's true, it's the perfect reason why the specialist build should have a bit of a nerf--at least enough to make large scale fights an even match.
Maybe that's true of every type of specialist build, not just tanks. And maybe that's already built in to the skill system in the form of diminishing returns.
In general there is no system that can make a group of generalists stronger then a group of separate specialists, short of flat out making it so that a specialist cannot get better at his specialty then a generalist. The advantage of a generalist is that in smaller groups the generalist can do every role well, but that is almost impossible to make that beat out a specialist who does it great for that task, and I believe that is pretty much required, Now the more roles you add the more that a generalist can succeed (because if every possible role is not filled, then the generalists will be able to fill more roles with less people). Or you put in several situations where you can't chose who winds up in what role
Personally I don't see any reason to punish or prevent specialists. Specialists are supposed to be able to do what they do best, if they can't then just eliminate the idea of specialists altogether, and yes if you scale it up a rogue 6 and a wizard 6, pali 6 cleric 6 no matter what will outperform 4 rogue2/wiz2/pali2/cler2 .
Personally I don't want a trinity where there are 3 roles that must be filled, then mix and match what you want for extras, but I also do not want everyone to be the same generalist either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I generally agree but would prefer the system reward generalists a little more. I'm not sure I follow why a larger group would favor the specialists. But assuming it's true, it's the perfect reason why the specialist build should have a bit of a nerf--at least enough to make large scale fights an even match.
Maybe that's true of every type of specialist build, not just tanks. And maybe that's already built in to the skill system in the form of diminishing returns.
The advantage of generalists comes in adaptably...and I don't believe that just applies to small groups either. That advantage is completely nullified in most Themeparks because the situation a group finds itself in is almost always 100 percent predictable. Thus you know exactly what specialists to bring and in what proportions. It's also the case that there really isn't all that much variation in combat situations in themeparks where one type of speciality is going to be considerably more important then others.
Neither of those need be true in sandbox MMO's...especialy PvP focused one.
The diversified specialist group will have someone that specializes in each role. That individual WILL perform that role better then the generalist...but there is no assurance that having a SINGLE individual that is optimized for a particular role will be more effective than a generalst group who may have MULTIPLE individuals who can perform that role with some confidence, IF they find themselves in a situation that emphasizes the importance of that role.
For example imagine you have 2 groups of 5 characters each. They find themselves in a combat situation where they cannot effectively close to melee range. Perhaps they are on opposite banks of a fast flowing river.
The optimal speciality in this case is ranged combat.
The diversified specialist group has ONE individual that is specialized in ranged combat. Lets call his ranged combat value a 10. Maybe they have one other person that has some ranged combat ability that is outside of his speciality..call his value a 3. The 3 other characters in the group have specialties in melee or some other areas not applicable to ranged combat.
Now look at the generalist group. They have no one among thier 5 members that's nearly as good at ranged combat as the specialist. However they've all cross-trained in multiple areas to have a wide range of abilities. Perhaps 4 out of 5 of them has some ranged combat skill...lets call the average of thier ranged combat values only half what the specialists is so 5 for each one of those 4 characters.
If we look at the ranged combat values of our 2 groups, the total for the specialists is only 13. The generalists are at 20. The generalists are SIGNIFICANTLY outperforming the specialists in this encounter.
The strength of the generalists is that they are more able to ADAPT to fluid battle-field conditions. The specialists have guys that are great at doing specific things...but NOT EVERY SITUATION will call for each of thier specialties. If the specialists haven't done any cross-training.... most of them may just find themselves with nothing usefull to do in some situations. While the generalists are rarely going to find themselves with a member that can't contribute in some manner.
Honestly, I think the best makeup will be a mixed group...where you have some specialists in certain areas where you can try and force the opponent to engage in a particular situation where you know they will be usefull.... and a certain number of generalists that can provide you with some flexability for dealing with situations you may be forced into yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even using the same math that Daniel Powell is using, there's only a narrow window in which the group of specialists is better than the group of generalists.
Even assuming the group of specialists contains the appropriate specialists, then you would get the following relative values per group size:
Size, Spec, Gnrl
2, 3+1/3, 2
3, 3+2/3, 3
4, 4, 4
5, 4+1/3, 5
etc.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Nihimion- and at 6, 7 1/3 to 6 (Assuming that there are only three specialties, so that there are two of each specialist.)
General solution: if there are N>1 equally important tasks, and each one can be specialized to effectiveness A at the cost of reducing the effectiveness of the other tasks to B (with 1 being baseline), having a group of N individuals each specialized in one task is advantageous over a solid group of generalists when N>(b-a)/(b-1)
If we make the symmetrical assumption that a generalist is A times better than a specialist at everything except the specialty, (b=1/a), then the group of specialists is better when N>(a^3-a+1)/(a^2-a).
If only 20% of specializations have above baseline 'ranged attacks', and the other 80% average 0.15 as effective as baseline, then ranged specialists need to either have ranged attacks at least 4.4 times as effective as baseline- A bow-focused ranger needs to be over four times as effective at ranged combat as a jack-of-all-trades bard, given that set of assumptions. The jack-of-all-trades bard will be over five times as effective as the bow ranger, given that same set of assumptions, probably because the ranger has a moderate strength and no abilities useful for melee.
Of course, since "effectiveness" isn't always additive, and isn't always analong, and isn't always quantifiable, the games theory doesn't mean much when it devolves into algebra- For the previous example, the wizard freezes the river and casts a water walk spell on the melee specialists, who force the enemy to fight on the ice. Then the wizard melts the ice, letting the allied melee characters walk back on the river; or the ranged control specialist pulls the enemy into the river directly; or the defender redirects some portion of ranged attacks into misses, since there is no concern about melee attacks.
Will skill opportunity cost even be possible in this kind of skill system?
I mean, if skilling up AC mitigation makes X vulnerable, what effect does skilling up X have? Normal effect minus the vulnerability? Does this mean the most valuable skills are the ones you choose first?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will skill opportunity cost even be possible in this kind of skill system?
I mean, if skilling up AC mitigation makes X vulnerable, what effect does skilling up X have?
I don't think that's what opportunity cost means.
The opportunity cost is, if I spend my time training up X, then I can't spend that same time training up Y. By spending on X, I've given up the opportunity to spend on Y.
In that sense, the only vulnerability you have to X by training up AC is that you are less effective in X than if you had spent that time training up X instead of AC.
I may have chosen my words poorly. What I gather in general from Daniel is that skilling up X also makes Y vulnerable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hudax, I don't think they're going to do that, but I'm not going to try to speak for Daniel.
I believe PFO will only implement the specialist/generalist balance by allowing you to train deep into a given skill, to become a specialist, which will take a lot of time, but make you very good at one thing only, or train broadly across a lot of skills, which will make you a generalist, and give you decent skill at a lot of things. And of course, there's a lot of room for everything in between.
If I can be power level 10 in 6 months of pure Sword training, for example, I might be able to get power level 7 in 6 weeks, or power level 5 in a week. If I choose to stop at power level 5, then I can pick up 23 other things I can be power level 5 at in the same time it takes someone else to get power level 10 in that one thing. Or maybe they get power level 7 in 4 things. There's lots of room for individual preference in the PFO Skill Progression system.
|
The only question I have is why you think getting to power lvl 5 in a second skill would take the same amount of time as getting it on your first skill?
In the pnp it takes longer to get to third lvl then to get to second lvl even if you switch your training(class), if it didn't take extra time then a generalist(multiclass) character would grow in power at a faster rate then specialist(single class) and therefore no one would ever be specialist.
The time it takes to advance should be dependent on total power lvl not the lvl of the skill being trained.
Even mabinogi the most skill based rpg I know limits the skill advancements by requireing ability points earned when the character as whole lvls up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only question I have is why you think getting to power lvl 5 in a second skill would take the same amount of time as getting it on your first skill?
That's exactly how it works in Eve, and I think it's fundamental to the Skill Progression system that PFO will use.
The thing to realize is that you aren't good at swords because you're level 5, you're good at swords because your Swords Skill Rank is 5. All the "basic" Skills will probably have the same progression through their ranks. Something along the (totally imaginary) lines of:
Rank 1 - 5 minutes
Rank 2 - 15 minutes
Rank 3 - 30 minutes
Rank 4 - 1 hour
Rank 5 - 2 hours
To get to Rank 5 in Swords in this system, you would have to invest a total of 3 hours and 50 minutes.
However, getting Rank 1 in Clubs will still only take 5 minutes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only question I have is why you think getting to power lvl 5 in a second skill would take the same amount of time as getting it on your first skill?That's exactly how it works in Eve, and I think it's fundamental to the Skill Progression system that PFO will use.
The thing to realize is that you aren't good at swords because you're level 5, you're good at swords because your Swords Skill Rank is 5. All the "basic" Skills will probably have the same progression through their ranks. Something along the (totally imaginary) lines of:
Rank 1 - 5 minutes
Rank 2 - 15 minutes
Rank 3 - 30 minutes
Rank 4 - 1 hour
Rank 5 - 2 hoursTo get to Rank 5 in Swords in this system, you would have to invest a total of 3 hours and 50 minutes.
However, getting Rank 1 in Clubs will still only take 5 minutes.
Agreed, not to mention the side effects a universal diminishing returns would have. While I like the idea of having pure crafters/harvesters, I would hate the idea of 100% elimination of amature crafters/harvesters. If taking that 1 rank of sword smith now for 5 minutes, in the long run adds 10 hours to your Swords rank 9, that is not a fair tradeoff. The costs for taking a skill should be up front, and paid for up front, spending 10 minutes on a skill that turns out to suck, should cost you 10 minutes, not 10 minutes now and 5 minutes on every other skill you take for the rest of your life.
|
|
That is how it works on pnp with which I'm most familier, and it seems the best way to keep a multi class character from out powering a specialist. If it takes me 3 hrs and 20 minutes to learn 3rd lvl spells, swords, shields, and armor and it takes 3hrs and 50 minutes for you to learn lvl 5 swords, then how is that balanced? I can can hit you with magic before you ever get close then I can defeat you when you finally get to meelee rng because I'm proficient in two defenses and a sword.
You better swordsmanship isn't enough to overcome my advantages and the only way to make you equal in that regard is to so totally make lvl five so significantly better that you end up with low lvls killing max lvls who specialized somewhere else. And a lvl 5 should never easily kill a lvl 20.
Besides if we lvl skills by class group (which is my impression) then a generalist could get to lvl 20 by taking 2 lvls in most of the classes which would be MUCH faster then getting lvl 20 in one class.
Though I could concede that all skills fall into the three catagories (combat, craft, and build) and that if time doesn't stack between, then that wouldn't be as much of a problem.
@ onishi, the amount of time cost for later lvls would be constantly diminishing in percent. This way of lvling is a catch up feature, as you can start 3 hrs behind your buddies and by the time you reach mid lvl the 3 hr difference isn't even noticable.
When I played a game of dnd my character started at 1st when everyone else was about to hit lvl 5, by lvl 10 I could barely tell that I started almost 4 lvls behind, for I usually lvld at the same time or rarely the next encounter. And yes I was a helpfull part of the group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ onishi, the amount of time cost for later lvls would be constantly diminishing in percent. This way of lvling is a catch up feature, as you can start 3 hrs behind your buddies and by the time you reach mid lvl the 3 hr difference isn't even noticable.
When I played a game of dnd my character started at 1st when everyone else was about to hit lvl 5, by lvl 10 I could barely tell that I started almost 4 lvls behind, for I usually lvld at the same time or rarely the next encounter. And yes I was a helpfull part of the group.
In D&D there is also an XP boost for being behind the party, and while the diminishing returns increase the time between them, making the diminishing returns issue universal still makes it so that if you take 2 "levels" of crafter, that is essentially the equivalent of giving yourself a +2 LA race in 3.5 rules. Take 3 levels of harvesters now you are a permanent +5 LA race. In your example, even assuming your DM ignored the bonus XP for being lower leveled, you were not considered to require the same amount of XP as your party to advance from 1-2 as it did for them to advance from 5-6, you should have leveled twice in that time if my memories of 3.5 XP tables are accurate.
That is how it works on pnp with which I'm most familier, and it seems the best way to keep a multi class character from out powering a specialist. If it takes me 3 hrs and 20 minutes to learn 3rd lvl spells, swords, shields, and armor and it takes 3hrs and 50 minutes for you to learn lvl 5 swords, then how is that balanced? I can can hit you with magic before you ever get close then I can defeat you when you finally get to meelee rng because I'm proficient in two defenses and a sword.
You better swordsmanship isn't enough to overcome my advantages and the only way to make you equal in that regard is to so totally make lvl five so significantly better that you end up with low lvls killing max lvls who specialized somewhere else. And a lvl 5 should never easily kill a lvl 20.
Besides if we lvl skills by class group (which is my impression) then a generalist could get to lvl 20 by taking 2 lvls in most of the classes which would be MUCH faster then getting lvl 20 in one class.
The way is rather simple, first of all the defenses cannot stack, If HP is an increasable stat, it will have to be it's own ability seperate from any archetype. a 2/2/2/2/2 should have the same HP as a 2. At least that is the only way I can come up with to keep a 20/20/20/20 on par with a 20. Either HP has a cap and it only uses the highest classes HP, or HP is just flat out unconnected to class, and is instead a mixture of gear and a non-archetype skill for HP.
I've said it before and I'll say it a few dozen times, the main goals for the game (at least according to Vic I believe, I haven't heard Ryan contradict this so I am guessing it is right) is a 20/20/20, being versatile but not massively stronger than a 20, IMO this is inseperable from a 5/5/5/5 being comparable to a 5. The reason multiclasses are comparable or sometimes far stronger to a single class in 3.5, is specifically when they pick abilities that stack together well, This cannot be possible without a 20/20/20 being dues-ex, which is not the goals of the game.
In your example of blasting with spells when the person is far, switching to the sword, he should not have the defenses of multiple classes, if he is firing spells, they should be failing pretty regularly if you are wearing full plate armor, and you will have poor defense when your opponent closes the distance if you aren't. (I'm not sure how to balance monks yet, but I'd imagine it would have to be done via some kind of robes or something specifically for them as we don't really know what the "wisdom bonus" equivalent will be when stats aren't implied to effect abilities.
Also note that carrying extra weapons would be a huge liability. As if you are outnumbered, ganged up on etc... whatever you don't have equipped, is gone. So if the wizard is holding a powerful staff to boost his magic, switches to a sword when the opponent reaches melee, lets say he kills the opponent, and then gets jumped by 3 more and dies. He's now lost his staff.
|
|
One, yes I lvled up more often, that's how the catch up works the speed of improvement starts fast and slows down, why change that here?
And that's why skills shouldn't have independent lvling timers. How else can they balance it without seriously weakening something?
There is a system that works well, and can be implemented with almost no modification while achieving the goals, if they start playing with it then there is good chance of something breaking(like how trinity appeared).
would the trinity have come about if they stuck with the tried and true balance? Sometimes change can be good but you always test that on a small scale game and if it works then you apply to larger game. I just don't see how it can be balanced any other way.
Also I did say breaking into catagories would alieviate the combat balance. So one timer for combat skills, one timer for crafting skills, two timers total(effectivily you have a combat lvl and a non combat lvl). This only works because combat doesn't help crafting and vice versa. but it still works and keeps you balanced.
In truth in 3.5 multiclass is never stronger and during the low to mid levels is actually weaker then a specialist. Yes versatility is there but opponants more easily defeat your dcs because caster lvl is lower and then you can't put out as much dmg as a specialist except in rare circumstances.
Caster lvl for abilities is dependent on that class alone not total level so frankly I don't the total overpoweredness everyone seems to be afraid of. I see some but only minor not major difference.
As far as balancing 20/20/20 (28 years)if using the book method it would take so long to get there that the game would be dead most likely (I elsewhere calculated the time to level every class to max and got well over a century) since they are using time and not exp for this then noone would ever reach max(without prolong).
And not only that but at that point the only significant power increase is hp. Which could easily be fixed(if you believe it needs to be) by using only the top twenty hd. But seriously once you hit 20 lvl how much of a diff does 1d6 hp make? and if a 20 lvl fighter starts learning wizardry at 21 lvl he still only has a caster lvl of 1 and that means combat spells would be almost useless compared to what he is fighting and only utility spells help, and even then rarely against enemies(since a 1lvl spell with a caster lvl of 1 isn't going to impress anything that doesn't fear epic fighters). So at lvl 20fighter/5 wizard he casts invisible instead of buying a scroll of invisible. How's that a power issue?(sounds like a resources issue if anything)
He doesn't really get anything pvp usefull (vs lvl 20s) beyond hp( only if he continues to get hd) untill his wizard lvl is high (say lvl 15) and then he is a lvl 35 total having spent over 8.5 years getting there. That is a long time for others to catch up and if they wanted they could double the time normally required after 20th.
And if he goes barbar? The bonuses are less impactfull (at that high a lvl) and last for only a short time while incuring penalties.
The only power issue I see is high lvl vs low level which is an issue regardless of what you do.
|
|
I forgot the weapons, a wizard doesn't have to have a staff ( I don't use one, ever). So choice becomes a limiting factor. Do I take multiple weapons that can help in differing situations? Or do I stick with 1 at a time?
Sounds like a naturally occuring limiting factor. Can be gone around of course but at significant risk which is a theme in this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I forgot the weapons, a wizard doesn't have to have a staff ( I don't use one, ever). So choice becomes a limiting factor. Do I take multiple weapons that can help in differing situations? Or do I stick with 1 at a time?
Sounds like a naturally occuring limiting factor. Can be gone around of course but at significant risk which is a theme in this game.
Odds are a wizard will need something to cast spells. PFO will not be following the rules of P&P, and if creating gear equipment etc... is a large focus of the game, than I highly doubt they are going to allow wizards, sorcs and monks to just not care about them, whether they are gloves for the monk, maybe a spellbook/staff for the wizard etc... There will most likely be something.
As far as balancing 20/20/20 (28 years)
28 years was all 11 classes. 20/20 is 5 years down the line, well within the expected lifespan of the game and I expect to see no shortage of 20/5/5/5's or whatever, considering many will want one capstone, but not likely strive for every single one. 1d6 isn't much, but 20/20 vs 20, DOUBLE HP is a pretty big deal, and 5 years in is still a point in time where people want to think they can eventually get on even terms with the people at the top eventually, rather than still be 1/3rd weaker then them in 5 years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DarkLightHitomi, you should read the blog Your Pathfinder Online Character to understand why they're going with a Skill Progression system instead of the normal XP-based levels you're familiar with.
|
|
First off I understand using time instead of exp, however there is nothing that I saw that says each individual skill has its own timer. I think of it like gaining exp over time instead of exp over kills.
I am not saying to use exp!
But even using time can still use the same progression of lvls. Which leads to what I was describing above.
As far as wiz/sorc/mnk needing implements. I really hope not. That would also not capture the feel of pf, except wizards can have an arcane bond which can be a sword if you want which still bypasses multiple weapons.
Also if wizards an such do need seperate implements that would strengthen my argument not weaken it.(as it becomes an almost mandatory weakness)
I also said they can limit to top 20 largetst hd(hit dice which directly affects hp) so yeah the hp thing simple without denying everything.
I have no idea where you get lvl 20 x 11 in only 28 years. And 20/20 is 6.25 yrs not 5 using my desc.
Trying to make a 5/5/5/5 about equal to a 5 is just plain ridiculous.
Either way we don't know what they will use I just think what everyone else is suggesting will take a lot of work to balance and what I'm suggesting won't. A couple of minor adjustments(like limiting hd to 20) and its done.
Ps casting in armor, full plate yeah problems light armor not so much even without armor casting. However these 2 aspects are already balanced by each other and don't need further adjustments, simply choose: high penalty/low penalty or low penalty/high penalty or somewhere in between.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Trying to make a 5/5/5/5 about equal to a 5 is just plain ridiculous.
How is it more rediculous than making 20/20/20 about equal to 20? Any method that balances 20/20/20 balances 5/5/5. You either make HP a skill seperate from class, or base it on equipment etc... You only can be using 1 class ability at a time, you can alternate them, you can cast fireball and follow it up with rage and charge and whatever other abilities you have, but as long as you can't simultaniously mix them (IE using favored enemy + sneak attack + smite evil in one strike). then essentially your power level is the same, you just are more versatile by having the right tool for the job.
I have no idea where you get lvl 20 x 11 in only 28 years. And 20/20 is 6.25 yrs not 5 using my desc.
I am getting 5 years from the actual blog posts.
I'd like to see the first 20th-level characters emerge around two-and-a-half-years after launch
First 20th level characters 2.5 years, so first 20/20's around 5 years, very basic math. For the most part they have implied and hinted nothing about diminishing returns where working on one skill will add to the time it takes to learn a different skill etc... and that is very far from how skill based games work. I base my calculations on what the developers say they are intending to implement, not based on what you suggest. The developers have made it clear that there aren't actually "levels" at all, there are archtypes that have certain skills that you raise, and certain milestones can be considered levels if you wish to call them that. We call the abilities 20th level just for simplicities sake, but it is unrelated to the actual system the game has.
As far as wiz/sorc/mnk needing implements. I really hope not. That would also not capture the feel of pf, except wizards can have an arcane bond which can be a sword if you want which still bypasses multiple weapons.
Again this is about actually balancing within the system they are designing. In pathfinder table top you have the equipment and stats going up at controlled proportions to each-other, both melees and spell-casters are working towards their gear and levels at the same time. In P&P fighter classes etc... are extremely dependent on gear, while spell-casters more or less can do without them. If you ran a super low wealth game, fighters would be pretty useless, wizards would barely notice the difference, when the wealth and challenge levels are managed that is irrelevant, when wealth and challenge levels and character levels are unconnected, it makes a huge difference.
Ps casting in armor, full plate yeah problems light armor not so much even without armor casting. However these 2 aspects are already balanced by each other and don't need further adjustments, simply choose: high penalty/low penalty or low penalty/high penalty or somewhere in between.
I was never saying much tweaking needed to be done to the armor penalties, you were saying that a person could cast at a range, and then go toe to toe in melee as soon as the opponent got close, and I was saying that was unlikely considering he wouldn't be as good at melee as the person he's fighting if he's in light/no armor.
The best analogy of why a universal diminishing returns wouldn't make sense. Lets go with real life, lets say I'm mastering bowling, now at first as a Beginer, it won't take me more then a few days/games to go from having an average of 50 to 100, it will take longer to go from an average of 100 to 150 etc... as the improvements are more fine tuned, now after years of practice my average is 300, I am perfect at bowling.
Now I pick up golf. Is there any reason why it takes me longer to start learning golf now, then if I had picked up golf before I started bowling?
Same thing, getting fighter to level 20, and starting on wizard, leveling wizard will take the same amount of time for the 20 fighter, as it does the fresh character.
|
|
First I think trying to make a 20/20 equal to 20 is not my cup of tea but if your goal was to have a soft cap then do so, but making all lesser combos suffer as well is the ridiculous part.
Second he said the first 20th lvl at 2.5 years. This implies that each archtype badge is close enough to a lvl then we can reference them as such. It does NOT imply that the next archtype persued would take the same amount of time. My arguement is for making them take more time not to say they have that. Also mix this with archtypes and you get the idea that you lvl an archtypes skill set not just individual skills, otherwise how do you classify archtypes?
Third, wow clones depend on equipment, not pf. Making everyone dependent on equipment completly changes the feel of the game and I recall that somewhere he said equipment would not be as important as other games. Ill post when I find it again.
Fourth, mixing differing abilities is something unique to pnp games something I usually do and would love to see in this game, however doing it your way makes this overpowered but doing my way makes this neccesary for balance.
Fifth, comparing to real life fails in this instance. It is a game and balance must be considered, in real life people are not balanced by their age and balance is not wanted by some.
As an autistic, ex-soldier(sharpshooter), martial artist(never defeated), and eletronic repairman(graduated with honors), I I'm much higher lvl then most my age. I can kill with my fists and weapons at close rng as well as with a rifle at 800 yards(left or right handed). I can also do above avg with computors and electronics, and I'm an excellent navigator and survivalist with experiance in hiking spelunking and rock climbing. I also have skills in carpentry and construction. And a decent gamer(won a few halo tournys, unofficial) and highly creative dm.How many 25 year olds out there can match me in as many areas?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First I think trying to make a 20/20 equal to 20 is not my cup of tea but if your goal was to have a soft cap then do so, but making all lesser combos suffer as well is the ridiculous part.
Second he said the first 20th lvl at 2.5 years. This implies that each archtype badge is close enough to a lvl then we can reference them as such. It does NOT imply that the next archtype persued would take the same amount of time. My arguement is for making them take more time not to say they have that. Also mix this with archtypes and you get the idea that you lvl an archtypes skill set not just individual skills, otherwise how do you classify archtypes?
Archtype skills are skills that are exclusive to that archtype. Most likely ones that will be similar to class skills, now without actually knowing what they are for each particular class, but I am guessing they will be things like for rogue, sneak attack, trap-finding, disarming etc... They were at least implied to be sets of skills not one "archetype" option on the blog.
Also archetypes are just sets of skills, that is how they have been described, the reason it is balanced is because the power level does not go higher in mixing, at least that is what the developers have said.
I know you want the infinite continuing to increase, but at a slower rate model, but I'm pretty certain you are alone on that one. I can't think of anyone else besides you who likes that idea, and the developers themselves have stated the contrary.
Third, wow clones depend on equipment, not pf. Making everyone dependent on equipment completly changes the feel of the game and I recall that somewhere he said equipment would not be as important as other games. Ill post when I find it again.
Having the best equipment will not be necessary in this game. Having a steady economy moving equipment in and out, will be necessary, Most likely this means equipment will be expected to break and damage on a regular basis, and even the best items will not likely be more then 1.5-2x the power of the basic weapons. That still doesn't change that equipment can be used to balance out builds and help control the power level of a 20/20, by limiting what can be mixed and matched, as well as equipment damage/repairs is going to be a necessary resource sink. No it isn't going to be a continual quest to earn the next weapon, but gear does have a vital part of the economy, and game-play in balancing both wealth and abilities, and direct bypasses of that will not fare well for the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I finally understand what you're saying DLH, but I don't think that's what they're going for. The blog describes Eve's Skill Progression system as the basis for PFO's. Eve's works the way I've described, where gaining the first rank of Bows is going to be X minutes, regardless of whatever else you've already done.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I may have chosen my words poorly. What I gather in general from Daniel is that skilling up X also makes Y vulnerable.
I meant "there are only so many skills you can have, so having a given benefit comes at the cost of not having the benefit of what you could have had instead."
I'm following you now. The vulnerability is no more than the opportunity cost.
I must have been reading what you were saying elsewhere (about crafting and armor) into this discussion.