Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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.
I think that there should ALSO be the ability to have one aspect improved at the active cost of weakening a different aspect; it is harder to dodge in heavy armor, so attacks that ignore the armor are more likely to hit.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Precisely- but what if you could make armor 'superheavy', giving it +1 AC but -1 touch AC? Or superconductive, resist 3 fire and cold but vulnerable 8 lightning? Or both, along with other modifiers?
What about the monk's robe with a glamer making it look like superheavy full plate with a reinforced shield of blocking?
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I'll be interested to see what they come up with. The system they've proposed so far looks like it's going to require some pretty sophisticated design mechanisms to get the balance right.
Personaly I've always prefered hybrid systems...where you had exp and levels for advancement but when you leveled it was just the opportunity to buy skill ranks for the different skills/abilities available in the game. You had x cost per rank and a limit on the number of ranks you could buy at any one level. I've seen some systems impliment "classes" that way just by varying the cost to buy the skills/abilities associated with the class....sometimes they split it into background and main skill areas...others I've seen where they had an increased cost on the 2nd (and each additional) rank purchased that level.
I kinda like those systems because (for the most part) it leaves the balancing within the advancement system. You don't really have to worry so much about the benefit the Fighter gets from taking some low level spell casting...because that benefit comes at the cost of not having those points availble to spend on other fighter type abilities at that level. In such systems crafting/background type skill are either purchased from a seperate pool...or the cost for the first rank each level is set low enough that a character doesn't really have to give up much at all to dabble in it.
Anyway, will be interesting to see what they come up with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, that sounds like the standard Talent Point system, and it's something I've always loathed because it forces you to create additional characters to perform the other tasks you want to be able to do (crafting, farming, hunting, soloing, grouping, raiding) rather than creating the character you want to play and letting him or her be able to do all the different things you want them to be able to do.
In addition, it's also notoriously hard to get those set-point systems balanced. They always end up with theorycrafted Best Builds. With an open system like PFO, they won't have to worry about balancing 50 points in this tree with 50 points in that tree, they just have to cap certain specific benefits like Armor, Block %, Shield %, Dodge %, Crit %, etc. They still leave it wide open for the character to branch out into a bunch of different functions without becoming super-powered in any of them.
Frankly, I'm far more concerned with supporting the type of players who choose to play one character for 20 years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, that sounds like the standard Talent Point system, and it's something I've always loathed because it forces you to create additional characters to perform the other tasks you want to be able to do (crafting, farming, hunting, soloing, grouping, raiding) rather than creating the character you want to play and letting him or her be able to do all the different things you want them to be able to do.
In addition, it's also notoriously hard to get those set-point systems balanced. They always end up with theorycrafted Best Builds. With an open system like PFO, they won't have to worry about balancing 50 points in this tree with 50 points in that tree, they just have to cap certain specific benefits like Armor, Block %, Shield %, Dodge %, Crit %, etc. They still leave it wide open for the character to branch out into a bunch of different functions without becoming super-powered in any of them.
Frankly, I'm far more concerned with supporting the type of players who choose to play one character for 20 years.
I agree with you there Nihimon, I don't think it is necessary to completely limit anyone for total abilities, but it does make sense to limit the ones at once. Armor ties or even some arbitrary equip abilities option seems reasonable to me (I'm not a fan of the second, but it is still better then a limit of what you can learn total).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If the top-tier abilities require specific equipment (wand, rapier, full plate) or specific restrictions (no metal for druids, 'while wearing light armor or no armor' abilities), then there is the effect that only some number of abilities are useable at any time, but arising organically rather than an arbitrary cap.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the top-tier abilities require specific equipment (wand, rapier, full plate) or specific restrictions (no metal for druids, 'while wearing light armor or no armor' abilities), then there is the effect that only some number of abilities are useable at any time, but arising organically rather than an arbitrary cap.
Correct plus easily (but not instantaneously changeable). IMO swapping to a weapon in your backpack should take 15-30 seconds. Fast enough that in a large war you can sneak off behind a tree and change roles, but slow enough that when the barbarian saves against hold person and keeps blitzing to the wizard, the wizard can't just poof into heavy armor and a shield in the 2 seconds the barbarian is charging.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, that sounds like the standard Talent Point system, and it's something I've always loathed because it forces you to create additional characters to perform the other tasks you want to be able to do (crafting, farming, hunting, soloing, grouping, raiding) rather than creating the character you want to play and letting him or her be able to do all the different things you want them to be able to do.
In addition, it's also notoriously hard to get those set-point systems balanced. They always end up with theorycrafted Best Builds. With an open system like PFO, they won't have to worry about balancing 50 points in this tree with 50 points in that tree, they just have to cap certain specific benefits like Armor, Block %, Shield %, Dodge %, Crit %, etc. They still leave it wide open for the character to branch out into a bunch of different functions without becoming super-powered in any of them.
Frankly, I'm far more concerned with supporting the type of players who choose to play one character for 20 years.
Nihimon,
Obviously everyone has thier preferences. The entire point behind a hybrid style system like the ones I've described is that the act of building your character IS a game-play decision, figuring out what build you want to create for your character is part of the strategy involved in playing the game (i.e. "theory-crafting" is an INTENDED design goal of said systems). That's perfectly fine if the game system offers enough variety in challenges/gameplay that no one "theory-crafted" build is BEST in maybe 20-30 percent of the content the game. The reason why it becomes problematic in so many existing MMO's is that the range of challenges/gameplay options they present to the player is so narrow that the "theory-crafted" build is ideal for 95-99 percent of the game. That's where that dynamic really starts to become problematic.
Absent that, you just have better/worse designed builds for different types of situations.
Note that PFO will still have to deal with the same sort of balance issues. It's just that they won't have build-points as an availble mechanism to use in balancing (i.e. you can make something powerfull but give it an expensive cost in character build points so that it comes at the exclusion of buying something else)....they'll just have to use other (less direct) mechanisms to address the same issues.
Also, from what I understand...the "Talent System" is a somewhat different mechanic...it's a sub-specialization system where you might have 2 characters of the same class pick thier way down an ability tree EXCLUSIVE to thier class. In a hybrid system...there is no class exclusivity...everyone gets acccess to the same build picks...where clases are implimented (not all such systems even have classes) the only difference is in the build costs for abilities related to those classes.
Under such a system...you are limited to the raw quantity of abilities that a character of any given level can have...but the specific variety you pick is entirely upto the player. Obviously there are some combinations that have greater synergy between thier picks then others.
Again....no problem if such a system doesn't match your preferences...just stating what I like/think works well.
I do think you are mistaken though if you think PFO will be an EASIER system to balance then a point build system. IMO, it will be MUCH harder. They are still going to have balance it....but they won't have access to a "build point" system as a mechanism to do that....they'll have to use other mechanisms...like which abilities are additive in effect with each other or limitations on use with gear/equipment setup etc..... that may be possible...but it strikes me as a much more complicated mechanism to rely on. Time will tell.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, what are your thoughts on the pros and cons of a "build point" system with respect to forcing players to create additional characters for the additional tasks they want to do, but don't have enough "points" to buy on their main character?
Obviously a "build point system" limits how much or how many different things a player can do on any one character. It does that PURPOSEFULLY in order to
1) Not have any one character be "Superman"
2) In order to force the player to adapt thier tactics to make the tools they have access to work in situations that they are less then ideal for. In other words, they don't always have access to the BEST tool for the job at any given time. Forcing the player to think how to adapt to the situation using the tools they do have adds a game-play element to the experience (i.e. I'm a rifle-man facing a German Panzer, ideally I'd be able to grab a bazooka or man an AT Gun and engage that enemy...I don't have access to those tools/skills....what I do have access to is a rifle and some grenades and a radio...what can I make happen with those skills I do have access to in this sitation?)
3) To build in interdependancy with other characters who USUALY will be other players (Although it is possible that someone can bypass that in certain instances by multi-boxing).
The system that doesn't use build points will have to address all those issues....or simply declare that they aren't desired goals under the current design. I'm sure there are ways to approach those issues without using build-points but it does strike me as a more complicated design problem to approach without access to such a mechanism.
Obviously the big drawback to a "build point system" is it limits the player to the variety of gameplay experiences (i.e. assuming that playing a classic "Mage" is a significantly different gameplay experience then playing a classic "Fighter") on a single character. The player is forced to either split his play time and possibly his advancement among multiple characters (i.e. "Alt-itis") OR he is forced to pick only the specific gameplay experiences he mosts prefers and not significantly experience the others. To me, personaly, that is not a particularly bothersome situation (i.e. I have no problem with deciding that I only mainly want to experience the game as a "Fighter"....and if I want to dabble with other types I'll just create an Alt)..... to others, I recognize that it clearly is much more important of a concern.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, I hear you, and I agree with your 3 main points in general, although I'm extremely wary of the way #3 is pursued. I am 100% comfortable with making it take at least as long for a single character to switch between "classic Fighter" and "classic Mage" is it would to log out the classic Fighter and log in the classic Mage and then get it to where the classic Fighter was.
But I think you're still not really addressing the biggest problem with the "build point" system. It's not just about switching between "classic Fighter" and "classic Mage", it's also very much about switching between "effective soloer" and "effective grouper" and "effective raider" and "effective crafter" and "effective harvester".
I would be very interested indeed to know if you believe that having a single character be effective at all five of those "roles" would make them "Superman"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, I hear you, and I agree with your 3 main points in general, although I'm extremely wary of the way #3 is pursued. I am 100% comfortable with making it take at least as long for a single character to switch between "classic Fighter" and "classic Mage" is it would to log out the classic Fighter and log in the classic Mage and then get it to where the classic Fighter was.
But I think you're still not really addressing the biggest problem with the "build point" system. It's not just about switching between "classic Fighter" and "classic Mage", it's also very much about switching between "effective soloer" and "effective grouper" and "effective raider" and "effective crafter" and "effective harvester".
I would be very interested indeed to know if you believe that having a single character be effective at all five of those "roles" would make them "Superman"?
Nihimon,
I'm not sure exactly how to respond to that. Alot of that is dependant upon the games design focus. For example if a game is focused primarly on solo based play then pretty much every character regardless of build choices should be effective at "solo-ing", "crafting" and "harvesting".
If a game is focused on group based play then pretty much no character regardless of build should be effective at "solo-ing" nor should they be effective at "crafting" and "harvesting" at the same time if those two attributes are the sole requirements neccesary to achieve those elements. If a game features "raiding" as a primary focus of play then every character regardless of build should be effective at that.
I do believe that a single game must pick it's design focus and stay with that.... and I do believe that a game CANNOT be focused on BOTH group based play and solo based play at the same time... they can't really co-exist well in the same product. A game that truely wants to be focused on group based play will neccesarly need to be restrictive of the things a player playing "solo" can achieve..... If not IT will inevitably become a "solo" focused game...and group play will suffer.
That's not to say that there may not be ANY activities that a player can pursue "solo" in a group focused game...nor is it to say that there may be some character types that are LESS reliant on others in group based games.... but essentialy if you REALLY want to focus on group base
play...characters are going to have to be dependant on others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
I'm not sure exactly how to respond to that. Alot of that is dependant upon the games design focus. For example if a game is focused primarly on solo based play then pretty much every character regardless of build choices should be effective at "solo-ing", "crafting" and "harvesting".
If a game is focused on group based play then pretty much no character regardless of build should be effective at "solo-ing" nor should they be effective at "crafting" and "harvesting" at the same time if those two attributes are the sole requirements neccesary to achieve those elements. If a game features "raiding" as a primary focus of play then every character regardless of build should be effective at that.I do believe that a single game must pick it's design focus and stay with that.... and I do believe that a game CANNOT be focused on BOTH group based play and solo based play at the same time... they can't really co-exist well in the same product. A game that truely wants to be focused on group based play will neccesarly need to be restrictive of the things a player playing "solo" can achieve..... If not...
what I think you are not factoring in however mel, is that no matter how many roles a character is capable of performing, he does not necessarily have to be capable of performing all roles at the same time. say I'm a 20/20 wizard paladin. I can have a very strong defense and melee attack... but I can't cast spells to save my life in heavy armor with my hands full. Permitting versatile roles on one character, does not necessarily eliminate group dependency.
In eve, someone can be a master pilot of frigates, and a master pilot of battleships, but they only can really benefit from one of those 2 masteries at the same time. This allows for continual progress without necessarily gimping either one, but preventing the superman problem simultaneously.
Heck even if say you could have all abilities from all classes at the same time, an ample universal cooldown of say 3-6 seconds would still leave you needing multiple people to be able to keep up with everything. Or some sort of middle ground between those 2 systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I do believe that a game CANNOT be focused on BOTH group based play and solo based play at the same time...
That's interesting. Not surprisingly, I totally disagree. WoW is very supportive of Soloing, Grouping, and Raiding. I expect PFO's spawned PvE content will be highly scalable to provide appropriate challenges at varying levels and group sizes. I guess it depends on your definition of "focused", but that's really not what I was asking about.
But I'm still looking for an answer to my question. Let me pose it a slightly different way. WoW's Talent Trees let you focus your character to either maximize Solo/Group/Raiding/PvP play, or to try to get a hybrid that's missing key talents in all 4. My question to you is whether you think a WoW character who was able to have the theory-crafted "best build" for Soloing, Grouping, Raiding and PvP all at the same time would be a "Superman" character, if we assume that the talents that make you better at one realm don't provide any benefit in the other realms. (That last given may not be true in WoW, but I'm just trying to be clear about my question.)
To put it another way, if you don't have enough familiarity with WoW to answer: Would you consider a single character who was able to craft all of the gear the character needed (although not necessarily the best gear the character could use), and was able to harvest everything he needed to craft said items, and was able to operate effectively in solo PvE content by having enough survivability and damage output (assuming the PFO "dungeons" scale by power level and group size), and was able to operate effectively in a raid or large-scale PvP battle scenario by focusing on a very narrow set of tasks... Do you think such a character is a "Superman" character?
My concern with your "build point" system is that it puts an arbitrary cap on what a single character can do. You haven't said as much, but I assume you'd want it to take "build points" to choose different harvesting or crafting abilities, which means I don't then have points for combat abilities or something else. To me, this totally incentivizes creating highly specialized characters for each task, which is a terrible incentive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
what I think you are not factoring in however mel, is that no matter how many roles a character is capable of performing, he does not necessarily have to be capable of performing all roles at the same time. say I'm a 20/20 wizard paladin. I can have a very strong defense and melee attack... but I can't cast spells to save my life in heavy armor with my hands full. Permitting versatile roles on one character, does not necessarily eliminate group dependency.
In eve, someone can be a master pilot of frigates, and a master pilot of battleships, but they only can really benefit from one of those 2 masteries at the same time. This allows for continual progress without necessarily gimping either one, but preventing the superman problem simultaneously.
Heck even if say you could have all abilities from all classes at the same time, an ample universal cooldown of say 3-6...
Right, I understand that Onishi....which is why I stated in the other post that if you aren't going to use a "build point" or other advancement based system then you've got to find some other mechanism of achieving those goals.
EvE, as I understand it uses a mechansim that is based on the ship type...and given the fact that a player can only be in one ship at any one time....they are not going to have access to all thier skills at any given time.
Nihimon's second question struck me as a little more fundemental in terms of not just describing a particular method of achieveing some end....but the actual desired end itself being different. Perhaps I was reading too much into it though.
I have no problem if PFO finds another method of achieving the same results....although I think they are making thier design task significantly more complicated by doing so.
However, I'm not sure at this point if Nihimon and I are even talking about the same desired end result in the first place.
For example, by my understanding a game that is primarly focused on group play...is pretty much by definition, not looking for characters to be "effective soloers" since that is the opposite of the activity such a game would be designed to focus on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
..... To put it another way, if you don't have enough familiarity with WoW to answer: Would you consider a single character who was able to craft all of the gear the character needed (although not necessarily the best gear the character could use), and was able to harvest everything he needed to craft said items, and was able to operate effectively in solo PvE content by having enough survivability and damage output (assuming the PFO "dungeons" scale by power level and group size), and was able to operate effectively in a raid or large-scale PvP battle scenario by focusing on a very narrow set of tasks... Do you think such a character is a "Superman" character?My concern with your "build point" system is that it puts an arbitrary cap on what a single character can do. You haven't said as much, but I assume you'd want it to take "build points" to choose different harvesting or...
It would depend upon the games primary design focus. If the game was oriented towards group play...and crafting was a major portion of the game...then I generaly wouldn't expect a single character to perform all the activities neccesary to craft all his own gear by himself. Yes that would fit my definition of overly powerfull.... or more specificaly it would work contrary to the main design focus of the game (interdependancy).
There may be mechanisms then a "point build" system that you could use to approach that issue...for example you could have a system whereby one character knew all the skills/abilities sufficient craft everything he wanted but some of the tasks were so difficult you litteraly needed more then one skilled character to accomplish them. But there would have to be some mechanism for introducing interdependancy, if you want a game focused on group based play.
If you don't have group based play as a primary design focus of the game... then no problem.... you are trying to meet an entirely different set of design goals.
There ARE different ways you can break down dependancies... for example you could have systems that seperate "adventurers" from "crafters" and have one be dependant upon the other for thier needs.... or you could have every character be a capable adventurer and a capable crafter...but require more then one type of adventurer to adventure successfully and more then one type of crafter to craft successfully, etc.
I think PFO will take care of the "superman problem" rather elegantly. In EVE, it sounds like your ship is essentially your gear. Similarly in PFO, if you have on one set of gear, I think you will be able to make use of a relatively narrow set of abilities. If you swap gear, you can make use of another set. This could hold true even for crafting and building.
Here's the million dollar question--where will you keep your second set of gear? If you keep it in your bags, you risk losing it, which means losing a potentially huge investment of time spent gearing up for a skillset. Not an option. Your "alt gear" needs to be secure, which means it will be in the bank. So "switching specs" will mean going to the bank.
I think the only way to remove the Trinity from any MMO would be to remove the way the raids and other 'meta' content respond to player action. Give them a brain. If I saw a group of people charging to kill me, and I was a dragon, the last thing I would do is stay on the ground. And no, don't concentrate on the guy in the armor, light up the idiots in the robes first; any spellcaster would know they are far more dangerous in the short term than any git with a sharp edge, no matter how much prowess with the blade. And first chance you get, turn the healer into a briquet, so the rest of them won't stay standing for so long.
Overbloated ego aside, no dragon is dumb, unless they are intelligence 3. They ought to be using all their bag of tricks. As much as possible. But even in a tabletop game I rarely saw the dragons acting like dragons, they acted more like super orcs, slightly smarter, but not understanding how the rules of the world worked, like gravity, line of sight, or forgetting they can breathe fire rather often in a battle, and that most melee attacks from a dragon are AOE and not mano e mano. Even raid bosses are designed to LOSE. Honestly, I can't imagine how any group of players could realistically hope to battle one unless they either have it totally outclassed or it's blind and arthritic, which is almost the same thing. And admittedly most GM's fudge the numbers so the players survive, which they shouldn't do. Better to lose honestly than to win falsely.
In short, if the mobs don't behave in a manner consistent with the trinity, then there won't be a trinity. If that makes the fights harder, GOOD. They SHOULD be hard. If they are easy, why bother???
|
I do not want players to be dependent on gear. I hate that facet of every mmo I played that had it.
Some elements of the pnp don't translate to mmos but what seems to be forgotten is that most aspects of the pnp CAN be implemented with little or no alteration. So they should look to the pnp pathfinder first and only change what needs to be changed due to the new medium.
This means gear is only as usefull as in the pnp,spells can be cast in armor at the cost of a spell fail chance (if arcane), and multiclassing should be fine as it comes at the cost of not spending time on one class and the penalty to acuiring the rank. ( exp penalty in pnp would translate to mmo as a slower rate of skill learning)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, thanks for the answer. I really wanted to try and understand where you were coming from, rather than continually try to explain where I was coming from.
That said, it is clear to me that we are in complete opposition with respect to our desires for PFO. I sincerely hope PFO sticks to their goal as stated in the second blog, the one that really captured my attention and made me believe that the MMO I'd been designing in my head for the last 25 years might finally see the light of day:
... you can continue training the same character with a different archetype if you like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, thanks for the answer. I really wanted to try and understand where you were coming from, rather than continually try to explain where I was coming from.
That said, it is clear to me that we are in complete opposition with respect to our desires for PFO. I sincerely hope PFO sticks to their goal as stated in the second blog, the one that really captured my attention and made me believe that the MMO I'd been designing in my head for the last 25 years might finally see the light of day:
... you can continue training the same character with a different archetype if you like.
We'll have to see where it shakes out in the end. Just because you can train in more then one archtype doesn't neccesarly mean that you are going to be able to be functionaly independant in the crafting, adventuring or building aspects of play. The comments they've made in the "Adventures in The River Kingdoms" blog seem to indicate that they want some built-in interdependance between characters...and I've seen similar indications in other threads.
Also thier comments in replies to different threads at least indicate that they are aware of the potential hazards caused by a system where a character can reach max level in multiple arch-types... so I expect that they are going to be looking at some sort of mechanism to address those.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they arrive at for a final design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We'll have to see where it shakes out in the end. Just because you can train in more then one archtype doesn't neccesarly mean that you are going to be able to be functionaly independant in the crafting, adventuring or building aspects of play. The comments they've made in the "Adventures in The River Kingdoms" blog seem to indicate that they want some built-in interdependance between characters...and I've seen similar indications in other threads.
Also thier comments in replies to different threads at least indicate that they are aware of the potential hazards caused by a system where a character can reach max level in multiple arch-types... so I expect that they are going to be looking at some sort of mechanism to address those.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they arrive at for a final design.
I think for the majority of it, single character it all balances out, crafter/harvester/adventurer, it still evens out really. They have to invest the time, and odds are they will not be able to master every field of crafting/harvesting on one character, unless they focus purely on crafting/harvesting, requiring alts wouldn't lessen the problem any at all considering the same people who have the time to level multiple sides of their character, have the time to level multiple characters, it actually still will more likely occur that way since assuming they are paying, they could level the crafter while leveling their adventurer, instead of having to split their training time.
I still find limiting the capabilities of what a character can do at a time, far more practical then limiting what a characters capabilities are. Most of the games comments seem to be on a continual increase of versatility, which to me makes quite a bit of sense. I don't see much point in having nothing to do but level classes that you will never be any good at, because your talent points are all in your previous class. I would rather my cleric / wizard / fighter when I want to use them, be as good as the time I devoted to them.
I do not want players to be dependent on gear. I hate that facet of every mmo I played that had it.
I think there are 2 facets of gear dependency. The WoW and most MMO dependency is your character being dependent on having that ultimate top of the line purple or better sword of greatness. What we are talking about isn't that. We are talking about the abilities needing a basic disposable sword to have the abilities, and the option to spend more to get the abilities better. I do not want a WoW-esq permenent swap out this weapon for the next etc... and in fact I would like the weapons to degrade and wear out often enough that in fact using the nicest weapons is an emergencies only kind of thing. (see equipment damage and how it should be done thread).
There is a huge difference between requiring someone to carry a weapon for their class, and requiring someone to purely be focused on getting the best weapon possible for their class.
I do not want players to be dependent on gear.
We don't yet know the extent of that dependency, but I think it's an easy prediction that at the least, a fighter will depend on his sword, a ranger her bow, etc. There will be that baseline dependence. How much your gear defines your character as it improves and from build to build remains to be seen.
We'll have to see where it shakes out in the end. Just because you can train in more then one archtype doesn't neccesarly mean that you are going to be able to be functionaly independant in the crafting, adventuring or building aspects of play. The comments they've made in the "Adventures in The River Kingdoms" blog seem to indicate that they want some built-in interdependance between characters...and I've seen similar indications in other threads.
One part of this we are all forgetting is ability scores, which will be a huge limiting factor. Just as Strength will be requisite for a Fighter, so will it most likely be for a Stonecutter or Blacksmith. The Fighter will be naturally drawn toward crafts he will excel at, because otherwise he won't get the training speed boost. It will also make it quite difficult for him to train as a Fighter/Mage, unless he wants less than maximum STR or INT, and thus slower than maximum training and efficacy in one of those archetypes.
It may be that any given craft will require a high INT or WIS score, meaning the Fighter won't be well suited to any craft at all without some serious compromising at character creation. It may also be that any given build will require TWO ability scores--one that determines how quickly you skill, and another that will directly affect your competence. Ie: Fighter (STR & CON), Blacksmith (STR & INT). (If crafting required a high physical and mental stat in this way, it would prevent casters from monopolizing that area of the game.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One part of this we are all forgetting is ability scores...
That only partially addresses the problem. Mel seems to be of the opinion that no matter how long it takes you to get there, if you can do a bunch of different things well, then you're overpowered, and the game should avoid that.
I fully accept that, in order to craft all the things my character needs, I'm going to have to invest a lot of time learning to do that... time that I could have been investing into improving as an adventurer. I'm okay with that. I'm also okay with not being as good at crafting as someone who invests all of their time improving a single vocation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That only partially addresses the problem. Mel seems to be of the opinion that no matter how long it takes you to get there, if you can do a bunch of different things well, then you're overpowered, and the game should avoid that.
To put it more precisely, I believe if the game wants to be effective in focusing on group based play (and community building as well) then it cannot allow characters to obtain sufficient skills/ability/powers to be entirely self-sufficient or must introduce some mechanism by which the excersize of such skills/ability/powers does not result in the character being entirely self-sufficient.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't yet know the extent of that dependency, but I think it's an easy prediction that at the least, a fighter will depend on his sword, a ranger her bow, etc........
We have no idea to what degree, if it all, the game will use gear as a limitation....and I can easly think of a dozen different complications/sleezes that can make such an approach problematic..
A fighter is dependant upon his sword?
- Really...what about the fighter who wants to use an Axe or a Mace or god's forgive us even a staff?
- Are fighters the only ones who can use a sword. What about Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, etc..?
- Does the system have to create Fighter coded swords and Ranger coded swords...?
- What about timed based abilities, buffs and passives, spells. Do they go away when the character doesn't have the specific weapon drawn? Does the code have to make checks for that each time you put away your weapon? If not, then how does it prevent you from gaining benefits of multiple classes at once? Same thing for when armor is used as a limitation.
- How about the Monk/Wizard wearing robes and wielding a staff. Does the Monk not get to use a staff? Sounds pretty limiting grasshopper. Does the Monk have to use a special Monk Staff that's different from a Wizard Staff? The games going to have to have 11 full sets of equipment then. If the Monk/Wizard is wearing robes and carrying a staff...does he get to use his Wizard Spells and still fight and defend as a Monk? Sounds pretty powerfull to me. What about self-cast spells to boost things like Str, AC, Dex.... things that wouldn't be overly powerfull when on a Wizard...how do they effect a Wizard/Monk...or do we just deny those sort of spells to the Wizard?
- Same applies for attribute....is a character that didn't completely max thier prime attribute completely hosed... can you say here comes the march of the cookie cutter characters?
All this stuff sounds great when you use it as a generalization to describe a theory. When you start getting down to the details of how to actualy impliment it.....it gets a whole lot less workable. Especialy if you want to preserve anything that even remotely resembles the flavor of the table-top systems.
That's really the crux of it.... for everything you guys have suggested in terms of armor/gear limitations....I can think of about 100 different sleezes to circumvent....and I'm not even that inventive. They are either going to have account for all that in thier design logic or they are going to have to make the associated designs so restrictive that the player is hardly allowed to do anything.
There is a darn good reason why so many games put in hard limitations on character advancement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To put it more precisely, I believe if the game wants to be effective in focusing on group based play (and community building as well) then it cannot allow characters to obtain sufficient skills/ability/powers to be entirely self-sufficient or must introduce some mechanism by which the excersize of such skills/ability/powers does not result in the character being entirely self-sufficient.
That only partially addresses the problem. Mel seems to be of the opinion that no matter how long it takes you to get there, if you can do a bunch of different things well, then you're overpowered, and the game should avoid that.
Completely agreed, but as long as you can't do all things at the same time, I believe that will all be covered. Especially with the description of harvesting, If say I am an excelent harvester and combatant, while I am harvesting, monsters are going to be spawning, I am not going to be able to harvest very much if every few seconds I have to stop harvesting and fight off the beasts that are coming out to defend the resources. Crafting is it's own animal and I have a feeling (note total and complete guesswork here) there will be so many types of crafting adventurers wanting to master all areas of crafting will likely be years behind adventurers who either skipped crafting, or just focused on one area, not to mention, again they would have had to have gotten those resources, which means they would have needed a guardian.
Plus I doubt the major events, like kingdom building, defending, attacking etc... will ever be done alone, nor can clearing encampments and other PVE activities, as even if you could do every action (which I am not saying you should be able to have everything simultaneously I still think armor/weapons or some other limiter is needed), it still would be far more efficient to have teammates to split the work load.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mel, all that will accomplish is forcing the players who want to be self-sufficient to create extra characters.
It's not that easy to multi-box in an MMO that requires high degrees of user interactivity.
It's also a pretty huge play-time investment getting 11 or more characters to max level in games that require ACTIVE play (i.e. gaining exp) to advance.
Unless you are willing to pay for multiple computers, mutiple subscriptions and are able to bot/script your way through advancement it's going to be a rough ride.
Frankly most people won't bother....they'll just seek a game that is more designed to thier play style.... and the few that are willing/able to make such an effort....aren't going to have much of an impact on the game as a whole. You can afford to let the handfull willing to go through that do what they are determined to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mel, all that will accomplish is forcing the players who want to be self-sufficient to create extra characters.It's not that easy to multi-box in an MMO that requires high degrees of user interactivity.
It's also a pretty huge play-time investment getting 11 or more characters to max level in games that require ACTIVE play (i.e. gaining exp) to advance.
What game are you thinking of that character advancement that requires massive player attention. Skills themselves were described as earned in real time, regardless of activity, a system specifically designed to allow someone who spends a few hours a night advance at the same pace as someone who can play 18 hours a day. All that's needed to advance is completing requirements for merit badges.
One part of this we are all forgetting is ability scores...That only partially addresses the problem. Mel seems to be of the opinion that no matter how long it takes you to get there, if you can do a bunch of different things well, then you're overpowered, and the game should avoid that.
Precisely my point. You won't be able to do a bunch of different things well. You will be able to do certain things well, other things passably, and the vast majority of things poorly or not at all.
Case in point:
- How about the Monk/Wizard wearing robes and wielding a staff.
To presume upon the p&p rules, the Monk/Wizard will require high STR for dealing melee damage, high CON for taking hits, high INT for spells, and high WIS for AC and monk abilities. This doesn't even factor in DEX (which Treantmonk doesn't) or whatever PFO has in mind for CHA. Let's say the point buy in PFO allows a 16, 16, 14 including racial (normal 20 point buy), and for the sake of argument say the training bonus is generously optimal with a score of 16. Assuming stat dumping will always be a bad idea due to bad resistances, something will have to take a backseat in a big way. Either he can be a good monk and a crappy wizard, a good wizard and a crappy monk, or mediocre at both.
A fighter is dependant upon his sword?
The example is stereotypical.
- Same applies for attribute....is a character that didn't completely max thier prime attribute completely hosed... can you say here comes the march of the cookie cutter characters?
You could make the reverse argument--is the character who pumped his prime attribute to 20 completely hosed? Because they will be a one trick pony. If the maximum training bonus is at a 16 or 18, diversity will be encouraged among attributes and builds, and min/maxers will only be rewarded with narrow specialty.
Mel, all that will accomplish is forcing the players who want to be self-sufficient to create extra characters.
Since we will only be able to skill one character at a time, the only benefit to this would be in having different ability scores. If those stats affect crafting as much as adventuring, your adventurer would be able to skill up adventuring and a narrow field of crafting with worthwhile competence, and anything outside that field you would want an alt for anyway.
Besides, a Fighter/Blacksmith will need more than arms & armor. He will need bandages, potions, etc. that he will not be able to make, or will be able to make at a low enough level of competence to make trading worthwhile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The example is stereotypical.
Agreed, but the point still exists, whether it's an axe, sword, lance or whatever.
Since we will only be able to skill one character at a time, the only benefit to this would be in having different ability scores.
actually if I recall the rules on limitations for characters haven't been fully announced, but I recall Ryan stating that leveling multiple characters on one account would most likely be possible, but most likely not be free.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mel, I'm not talking about having a whole party running around. I'm talking about having one character do X Crafting skill and another to do Y Crafting skill and another to Harvest and another to Adventure. And I still don't understand why you want me to have to do that than have a single character that can do all 4.
|
|
Why cant I have a selfsufficient character, it is my most common archtype to play. Besides if i play a self sufficient character then when I run into someone else and group with them I will more likely have something to provide that they dont have already.
And again with the multiclassing, I have played a mnk/src many times and ways, they are balanced to equal lvl specialists only if their abilities work together. If the powers are not able to work together then the character is underpowered, which im my opinion is as bad as overpowered.
So this then begs the question, What is the power of a character compared to? An abstract idea? A character with equal investment of time/money/exp? Highest lvl badge regardless of number of badges or the investment to get them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And again with the multiclassing, I have played a mnk/src many times and ways, they are balanced to equal lvl specialists only if their abilities work together. If the powers are not able to work together then the character is underpowered, which im my opinion is as bad as overpowered.
There has been no implication whatsoever by any member of the development team that a multiclass is intended to be as strong as a single class of equal level.
The game itself is not actually level based at all. In skill based systems the diminishing returns effect applies only to the skill in question and not to any other skill. so getting to the 5/5/5/5 mark, will likely take maybe 2-3 months compared to the expected 2.5 years of getting a single archtype to the 20 equivalent. That is how every skill system I have ever heard of works, and there have been no implications of anything different in PFO's system.
Essentially every part of your argument is dependent on 3 or more other things being different than any game of PFO's genre. As I've mentioned some traits of the other character should be able to work together, not necessarally all of them, or any that would make a character clearly more powerful than one of it's highest rank.
A wizard that can sneak, is pretty reasonable, it isn't direct power, but it is versatility. A wizard dealing sneak attack damage in the same shot as a scorching ray, is drastically more powerful, than one who can't.
Monk is kind of borderline, it mainly depends on how attributes work. If spell-casting is stat based, so that getting str for melee attacks and wis for AC cuts into your cha, weakening your spell-casting, then it is balanced, but we really don't know how that side of things work. We have no confirmation that stats effect anything other than training speed of abilities and saves.
So far, at least from everything that has been said, multi-classing is intended to increase versatility, and not directly boost power. In the long run for what the goals of the game have been implied to be, that sounds like a very positive direction and goal for what is stated as the intentions of the game.
If you can come up with a system where a 20/20/5/5 is equal power to a 20, and a 5/5/5/5 is comperable power to a 20, I'd love to hear it. (note taking longer to reach 20/20, is not solving the problem, that is only delaying the problem)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What game are you thinking of that character advancement that requires massive player attention. Skills themselves were described as earned in real time, regardless of activity, a system specifically designed to allow someone who spends a few hours a night advance at the same pace as someone who can play 18 hours a day. All that's needed to advance is completing requirements for merit badges.Mel, all that will accomplish is forcing the players who want to be self-sufficient to create extra characters.It's not that easy to multi-box in an MMO that requires high degrees of user interactivity.
It's also a pretty huge play-time investment getting 11 or more characters to max level in games that require ACTIVE play (i.e. gaining exp) to advance.
Onishi,
I wasn't discussing the advancement system as described for PFO. I was talking about the dynamics of how alternate systems work in other types of games (not ones with offline advancement). Think of it more as an intellectual excersize in game design discussion rather then a discussion about what they've actualy proposed for PFO.
Although I will point out, most people seem to be assuming that merit badges won't require alot of effort to learn...as far as I know the Developers haven't talked much about the amount of effort they intend earning merit badges to take...it could be much more significant then alot of folks assume.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although I will point out, most people seem to be assuming that merit badges won't require alot of effort to learn...as far as I know the Developers haven't talked much about the amount of effort they intend earning merit badges to take...it could be much more significant then alot of folks assume.
It may be notable, but I'm pretty sure it cannot be too extreme. Considering I've seen several comments that PFO's system is designed to allow the less hard core, and people with less time, to not fall too far behind, and for people who start at the same time to be able to stick together without falling behind, throwing in a brick wall that takes 10 hours of grinding every other day would kind of defeat the entire value of such a system. I'm not saying it will always be short, but I will guess 2 things
1. You can continue to train the next skill while earning the merit badge for the current skill.
2. The time ratio of time unlocking vs time earning, will likely be at most 1-2 hours work for every 24-48 hours of skill unlocking.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It may be notable, but I'm pretty sure it cannot be too extreme. Considering I've seen several comments that PFO's system is designed to allow the less hard core, and people with less time, to not fall too far behind, and for people who start at the same time to be able to stick together without falling behind, throwing in a brick wall that takes 10 hours of grinding every other day would kind of defeat the entire value of such a system. I'm not saying it will always be short, but I will guess 2 things1. You can continue to train the next skill while earning the merit badge for the current skill.
2. The time ratio of time unlocking vs time earning, will likely be at most 1-2 hours work for every 24-48 hours of skill unlocking.
I hope that guess 2 is dead wrong. I want there to be at least 10 hours worth of merit badges available in a theme without any skills at all. As play progresses, the time required for each merit badge should increase, as well as the time required for the next tier of the relevant skills.
Times above based on a new character- one with perfect knowledge and twinked equipment should be faster, perhaps to the level of an hour or two per day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope that guess 2 is dead wrong. I want there to be at least 10 hours worth of merit badges available in a theme without any skills at all. As play progresses, the time required for each merit badge should increase, as well as the time required for the next tier of the relevant skills.
Times above based on a new character- one with perfect knowledge and twinked equipment should be faster, perhaps to the level of an hour or two per day.
Under that system how does the skill system vary at all from say a quest based XP grind then? That's how perfect world games and quite a few other games do it to earn levels, the XP from the mobs is considered negligable, but completing the endless stream of kill 200x's quests are how you level up. I mean you seem to half way agree with my ratio, 1-2 hours earning merit badges for every day or 2 of unlocking skills being with perfect knowlege, but I thought the idea of the system was for people with imperfect knowlege and a shortage of time, to not be left behind. If you are talking 10 hours of merit badge quests to use the skills that you unlock, why even bother with the skill system at all, why not 10 hour quests to level up like so many other games do?
IMO the point of this skill system is so that you can spend the majority of the time, building and protecting your city, negotiating, exploring, or doing whatever you enjoy rather than being forced to spend the time you have doing whatever the game tells you you have to do. What I hate so much about quest based games, is for me what is fun is fighting things that are waay above me, things that pose a real challange, yet most quests are designed as, kill 500 of something that you'd have to be drunk blind and asleep at the keyboard to get hurt by.
Now for some people killing a ton of weak things is fun, for some fighting strong enemies is boring. The thing with quests that you MUST do to progress in X, is you don't have the freedom to decide what you like, you have to do what you are told.
So yeah, I greatly will oppose any system that forces me to spend the majority of my time on something I don't care about, just to keep my character up to date.
Also the second flaw with it... me and my friends will all be different classes, so... either the majority of the quests will have to be the same, or I will have to spend the majority of my time soloing, or working with people of the exact same archtype as me...
Neither option sounds like spending my time the way I want to.
Now there is a compromise idea. If the quests were say defeat X number of foes (note by foes I am meaning the game not be picky on what the foes are) using a longsword, or perhaps deal X total damage using longsword, etc... bless X number of people etc... Quests that you can do, while you are doing whatever you want to do. Let the objectives follow you, instead of you follow the objectives.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I hope that guess 2 is dead wrong. I want there to be at least 10 hours worth of merit badges available in a theme without any skills at all. As play progresses, the time required for each merit badge should increase, as well as the time required for the next tier of the relevant skills.
Times above based on a new character- one with perfect knowledge and twinked equipment should be faster, perhaps to the level of an hour or two per day.
Under that system how does the skill system vary at all from say a quest based XP grind then? That's how perfect world games and quite a few other games do it to earn levels, the XP from the mobs is considered negligable, but completing the endless stream of kill 200x's quests are how you level up. I mean you seem to half way agree with my ratio, 1-2 hours earning merit badges for every day or 2 of unlocking skills being with perfect knowlege, but I thought the idea of the system was for people with imperfect knowlege and a shortage of time, to not be left behind. If you are talking 10 hours of merit badge quests to use the skills that you unlock, why even bother with the skill system at all, why not 10 hour quests to level up like so many other games do?
IMO the point of this skill system is so that you can spend the majority of the time, building and protecting your city, negotiating, exploring, or doing whatever you enjoy rather than being forced to spend the time you have doing whatever the game tells you you have to do. What I hate so much about quest based games, is for me what is fun is fighting things that are waay above me, things that pose a real challange, yet most quests are designed as, kill 500 of something that you'd have to be drunk blind and asleep at the keyboard to get hurt by.
Why should the typical merit badge be "kill x of y creature"? I was working under the idea that skills would grant equipment proficiency, and merit badges would grant better abilities to use with that equipment; The swordmaster badges would be along the lines of 'do x damage with swords to learn the slash ability' 'defeat a notable opponent using slash to unlock x' 'do at least y damage in one use of x to unlock...' or 'use deal x damage each with y different types of swords for sword mastery 1' - while the skills in the swords category would allow different swords to be used, but not provide access to those swords, which would have to be purchased or traded.
|
|
@Onishi, you ignored my question and instead focused on repeating something mostly irrelevent to what I was trying to say. If I cant make myself clear then I ap[ologize.
first, my question was, to what are you compareing the power of a character?
This is a very important question to answer. Is my character supposed to be "equal" based on investment of time? Investment of resources? Highest badge regardless of number of badges?
If investment of time is the answer to the above then;
If I spend X time on the skills to snk atk with shocking grasp, then I should be equal in power to Someone who spent the same amount of time to learn to power atk with a sword.
If highest badge is the answer to the above question then;
If I get badge 5 on the skills to snk atk with shocking grasp, then I should be equal in power to Someone who got badge 5 to power atk with a sword. Even if I have 50 lvl4 badges in other things.
If I am a 5/5/5/5 then I should be equal to a specialist at whatever rank they can achieve with the same investment as I invested on my char. If i takes me 6 mo to get there and 6 mo for a specialist to get 10 then we should still be about equal.
It doesnt matter if we lvl with exp or time or some other method. What I am trying to spell out is that weaking multiclassing( or getting rid of) is not balanceing the game, is is dividing the game. The balance issue needs to be addressed but not by forcing classes on the players, and any form of being unable to mix the powers of differing classes is forcing classes on the players.
It is NOT and will NEVER be multiclassing if the abilities do NOT work together!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I am a 5/5/5/5 then I should be equal to a specialist at whatever rank they can achieve with the same investment as I invested on my char. If i takes me 6 mo to get there and 6 mo for a specialist to get 10 then we should still be about equal.
I disagree, if you are 5/5/5/5 the advantage should be that you do have the right ability for the job, your stregnths will never be as strong as any specialist in his ideal conditions, but on the plus side you won't likely have a huge weakness. for instance a pure level 8 or 9 rogue (which is about what I would expect to be the level to be the same as a 5/5/5/5. Would be especially weak against a zombie, but your wiz/rogue, could instead be using scorching ray on the zombie.
first, my question was, to what are you compareing the power of a character?
More or less power of a character is the effective impact he makes in the same amount of time, plus the characters defense, plus support/utility capacity. A character with X HP who deals 100 damage per second, is significantly stronger than one who has the same HP and deals 25 Damage in that same second. Someone who deals 50 damage and stuns the enemy, is significantly weaker than one who deals 100 damage and stuns in the same second.
It is NOT and will NEVER be multiclassing if the abilities do NOT work together!
I never said no abilities at all should work together, but fine don't call it multiclassing.
If not can you name 1 system in which a 20/20 is not drastically more powerful then a 20 with abilities stacking the way you want them to? Saying to make things take longer, only delays the issue, it still leaves people starting in year 5, completely stuck in the dust.
I still think overall the entire power variation needs to be fairly small, to the point where with the right tactics and timing etc... a level 10 has a reasonable shot to kill a 20. (still at a disadvantage, but one that can be overcome). That was one of the best features in eve. Literally a brand new created character, if played right, could kill a 2 year vet (now admitted a 2 year vet actually walking into a trap set up well is unlikely, but the point is tactics could overcome huge level differences).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DarkLightHitomi, there is a key point that you need to understand with respect to comparing power levels. One of the wonderful things about a Skill Progression system like that PFO is planning to use is that you can easily decide to spend 6 months developing your character in ways that do not affect your "combat power level" at all. Because of that, it is not true that one character that has spent 6 months in game will be just as powerful as any other character that has spent 6 months in game. I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that a player who starts a character 2 years after the game is released will have a way to be relevant in a group of 20's within a matter of months. It can not be stressed enough that the key aspect of Skill Trees is giving you horizontal breadth of power, rather than vertical depth of power.
That said, you are absolutely right that the different class skills should have synergy and gain power when properly combined. GW has given absolutely no hint as to how they plan to address this, and I think that until they do, it is futile for us to say that it can't be done or that it has to be done this way or that way. For my part, the most important thing I would want GW to hear from the community is this: "We want to be able to multiclass, and we want open-ended advancement, but we don't want older characters to always be more powerful than younger ones."
@Daniel, I don't think I understood what you meant when you said "I want there to be at least 10 hours worth of merit badges available in a theme without any skills at all." Do you really mean to say that you want a character to have to invest a significant amount of in-game play time to advance? I really don't think that's the intent. I imagine that there will be certain Merit Badges that require a significant effort to achieve, but I hope that either 1) there will be plenty of skills that aren't blocked that we can continue to train while we pursue that merit badge, or 2) the merit badges don't actually block further progression in the skill tree, so that I can pursue Swords 4 and maybe even Swords 5 while I try to achieve the merit badge that opened up when I finished Swords 3. However, again, I think that until Ryan writes a blog that goes into much more detail about the Skill Trees, I think we're just spinning our wheels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That said, you are absolutely right that the different class skills should have synergy and gain power when properly combined. GW has given absolutely no hint as to how they plan to address this, and I think that until they do, it is futile for us to say that it can't be done or that it has to be done this way or that way. For my part, the most important thing I would want GW to hear from the community is this: "We want to be able to multiclass, and we want open-ended advancement, but we don't want older characters to always be more powerful than younger ones."
While I may be coming off as strongly against synergy of abilities, I actually completely agree in concept, just disagree in priority.
IMO if we have to chose between synergy, and control of power, I vote for control of power. If GW or anyone else can come up with a system to support both, I will be 100% for it.
IMO the overall best success for the game, will involve as small of a power variation as possible. I would like to see people 3 months in, and people 5 years in, fighting side by side to the same goal, both in PVP and in PVE. I think the greatest annoyance to me in most all current MMO's, is the tiered off areas of games. IE WoW's style of "OK you are level 30, this is where you adventure, these are the adventures you can do, you might be able to hold your own in a fight with someone up to 34, it is suicide to attempt anything that the level 38's are doing".
Now pretty much always you will be paying your dues, but i would like to see at the absolute latest, 6 months in characters being able to participate in more or less the same battles and activities as even the vets, maybe not do them as well as the vets, but actually fit and and fight along side them, both in PVE and in PVP. Huge hordes of undead, or even bringing 50-100 people against an ancient dragon. I would like to see the difference between someone 6 months in, and the 6 year veteran to be more like college basketball vs the NBA, (compared to say WoW where the difference between a 60 and a 70 is the NBA vs a middle school team).
TL;DR
Basically I actually like the idea of class synergy, but I think that the total power range needs to be as limited as humanly possible, and allowing it to climb infinitely can hurt the game in more ways than a lack of value in multi-classing ever will. I am not against the synergy on it's own, but so far no-one suggested a system to balance it and I cannot support it without such a system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, I figured you would agree with my phrasing. I too am very hopeful that the overall difference between a 5 and a 20 will not be so much that a 20 will always beat an infinite number of 5's. I also think the single most important thing that any new game can do to entice new players is to make the game so that they can partake and be relevant even in a group full of veteran players.
I think that until Ryan writes a blog that goes into much more detail about the Skill Trees, I think we're just spinning our wheels.
Agreed.
In any event, the real trick, for me, will be how they distribute roles within this system.
Say you have a 20 fighter. For the sake of argument, he has an ability that allows him to do competitive damage, mitigate damage done to himself, and mitigate damage done to others. Maybe he also has some buff/debuff/CC abilities.
What does the level 1 fighter have? How long will it take the new player to catch up in terms of role versatility?
|
|
@ onishi, the problem is what you want with lvl 20/20 and 20 being equal does not work at both ends of the spectrum. at high lvls your idea might work somewhat but at low lvls the difference is huge. the only way to balance the multiclassing accross all lvls is to balance effects other then your powers.
Take Mass Effect for example, as again in lvl the fights dont get easier then when im low lvl because everything scales to my total power lvl without accounting for what I spend points in.
The only way I can see having low lvl and high lvl be equal is to get rid of lvls. there is no point to lvling a character if they are good the way they are.
Best option is not to go playing with power interactions(which is where tactics come into play) but rather to balance out the stats those powers use. Put a cap on bab and hp but not on powers.
balance out the hp and base stats to balance the game. The powers and their use is already balanced in a progression close to what you want so the only thing is to stop the progression at a max lvl. if you start playing with power interactions then you are just running into trouble.
balance the base stats so they have limits at lvl 20 and then that will balance a 20 with a 20/20 without inhibiting power interactions.
Example, A 20wiz/20ftr vs a 20 ftr, the wiz can cast a spell at rng so the ftr retaliates with his bow. The wiz has to worry about whether the spell works or not because of the armor while the fighter is limited by how many tgts he can hit. When meelee is reached the ftr will atk with sword and wiz can use either sword or spell, the sword is definate dmg on hit where as the spell is a gamble for slightly higher dmg or a different effect requires to hit AND to pass spell fail check. because the hp and bab was capped the wiz/ftr and the ftr have similer hp and bab.
As far as balancing a lvl 5 with a lvl 20, it is a stupid idea to make them equal. the 5 can still be of use because he can be a distraction or a rngd character or have special skills, so he provides something to the fight but nowhere near what another 20 would do. The 5 is of use as a tactic.
if you want to be equal to someone who has played twice as much as you then go play a fps or something whwere they dont have lvls. lvls are not supposed to be equal, hence the name, levels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as balancing a lvl 5 with a lvl 20, it is a stupid idea to make them equal. the 5 can still be of use because he can be a distraction or a rngd character or have special skills, so he provides something to the fight but nowhere near what another 20 would do. The 5 is of use as a tactic.
There was no statement by anyone to say equal, what has been said was to be in the same league. a level 20 should beat a level 10, 9 out of 10 times. What we don't want is, a level 20 to single-handedly walk through 15 level 10's without breaking a sweat to the point where a mid level character and an advanced character are on different enough of a playing field that the level 10's (people who have been playing about 6 months to a year), have absolutely no impact in a large scale battle.
A game without levels you say... Well considering that levels are only being used to explain concepts, and PFO has no levels, but instead is skillbased like eve, a game of which a 1 million or less skilled character, in the right circumstance with the right planning can beat a 31 million skilled character, which is a similar goal to what PFO should be targeting.
Every MMO outcome of a fight is weighed in on 4 things
Skills/Level
Player skills
setup (tactics/terrain/supprise)
Gear
In your typical WoW or pretty much any other level based theme park, the weight goes like this
Skills/Level 75%
Gear 20%
Setup 2.5%
Player skills 2.5%
In games like Eve, the weight tends to go more like
Skills/Level 20%
Gear 20%
Setup 35%
Player skills 25%
Level still impacts your character, and your level etc... has comparable value to your player skills, but it does not dwarf it to the point that without being the right level, or having the right skills, you should not be anywhere near the same battle as the big guys.