Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont see you as a jerk because you are ABSOLUTELY right in your view about granular numbers. They are not needed in a good game......there is nothing fun about "granular numbers" there is nothing better about "granular numbers" the only thing you do with "granular numbers" is two thing 1. make the whole system meaningless 2.be a WOW clone
some might see me as a jerk and if a derail i will move this idea but really this takes the cake
Bascially all you have identified is that you don't understand mathematical modelling.
Granularity refines complex information. Combat is complicated. D20 is oversimplification. You won't see the math you will only be confronted with a better combat model, once the system is fully and adequately tested.
Modelling melee combat using D20 dice is like using a sledgehammer to slice bread. Greater granularity, in that analogy, is using a breadknife to slice your bread. Accuracy is a product of granularity. The numbers are more sharp and distinct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I am fine with big numbers. I actually like it if you have 500 health and somebody hits you for 34 damage. Well, at least when I don‘t have to calculate my own health. And with a computer game, you don‘t have to.
As for numbers that are too big, they are only too big if the smallest value you can change them by is 1000. Then they are needlessly adding zeros.
Edit: to people calling Pathfinder Online a WoW clone.
WoW is the best mmo to date. Everybody and their dog has heard of it. Every mmo designer and his/her dog wants their mmo to be as popular as WoW. As such, they will imitate WoW in ways they think will make their game better.
Having some shared qualities does not, I repeat, DOES NOT make a game a WoW clone.
It‘s like calling a fish a clone of a sea turtle because they both have fins and live in the sea.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Let's just round Batting Average up by one decimal place. What's the difference? Right?
Lets round your mortgage interest rate up by one decimal place. What's the harm?
Lets pretend that Baldurs Gate, a game where one player can get 6 characters 1/3 of the way through their whole XP tack in a week is a good fit for an MMO where several hundred thousand players will still be advancing some characters 10 years after it launches...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose people may find large numbers imposing on their own, but I think the ultimate factor is understandability/usability.
That doesn't mean that the number scale shouldn't correspond to the minimum forseeable bonus/penalty,
and the desired fineness should have some grounding in game design rather than being arbitrary...
I would say that switching from d200 to d100, with corresponding halving of bonuses, COULD be a bit more intuitive.
That is still 5x the fineness of the basic d20 system, I'm not sure if Still, I would say that d100 is probably the absolute minimum for this type of system, so d200 may well be justified.
(d200 is also alot more intuitive than something like d140 would be, even though d140 is a smaller number)
I think it's also good to realize that GW is using much less variables than d20/Pathfinder... basically just 2: attack bonus and damage (scaling) factor, instead of 5 or more: attack bonus, damage dice, damage bonus, crit range, crit multiplier (plus conditional modifiers of those, e.g. +attack only to confirm crits, damage bonuses that don't multiply on crits, etc.) The Tier system (changing the bell curve for rolls) is pretty much all about having a SMALLER numerical difference for a given discrepancy in statistical outcome between low/high level characters... A flat-out improvement upon the d20 system, IMHO, certainly keeping in mind GW's stated goals re: flatter but not flat power levels.
Given that, having some more fineness in measurement for attack/damage and damage (scaling) factor isn't actually any more complicated, and have more fineness than the sub-components of d20's system is probably a very good idea if you want at least the same over-all fineness as the end result of d20's more complicated system (while using less variables).
I would imagine that as a 'tutorial' or 'demo' of the rules, GW would give clear examples of how it works, to show 'what happens when you add 100 to your attack score', e.g. attack roll exactly meets resistance 'R' = do A damage, attack roll fails resistance 'R' by 100 = do X% less damage = B damage, attack rolls beats resistance 'R' by 100 = do X% more damage * damage factor = Y% more damage, which = C damage... And the same comparisons with a different Resistance to see how that changes the relative value of 100. Otherwise, attack bonus and resistance are pretty much directly comparable, and damage variation is just a derivative of attack vs. resistance, pretty easy to understand in concept. So... I'm sure it can (and should) be explained a bit more clearly/concretely when the game is public, but there is no insurmountable obstacle there that I can see.
As well, either in-game tools or external websites which can 'read' character profile data can quickly give players an understanding of how they compare (e.g. typical char level or bell curve % of other players who have similar stats, or the typical char level or bell curve of the character whose defense their offence would be on-par with (average attack = target resistance), or vice-versa for their own defense. Or, express that as how much more damage you do (average) per round vs. average 1st level character resistance, or how much damage your armor prevents vs. average 1st level characters' attacks (etc)... and how much +/-100 would change those details. People use exactly such tools for analysing Pathfinder d20 characters ("DPR Olympics Spreadsheet"), to understand the changing benefit of +attack, +damage, and Crit variables vs. different enemies.
Ultimately, as long as you understand what helps you, and what hinders you, you aren't going to make any really horrible decisions, and there can be various tools to assist players in making more detailed decisions... The ultra detailed and precise comparisons are just not actually needed to play a character, some people LIKE to be able to do such comparisons, but the knowledge they provide or 'prove' is conveyable by other means, e.g. 'guides' on good build approaches, nit-picking on every digit isn't needed to build a broadly competitive character.
I suppose people may find large numbers imposing on their own, but I think the ultimate factor is understandability/usability.
I would say that switching from d200 to d100, with corresponding halving of bonuses, COULD be a bit more intuitive.
That is still 5x the fineness of the basic d20 system, I'm not sure if 10x the fineness (d200) is really needed.
Still, I would say that d100 is probably the absolute minimum for this type of system, so d200 may well be justified.
(d200 is alot more intuitive than something like d150 would be, even though d150 is a smaller number)
I think it's also good to realize that GW is using much less variables than d20/Pathfinder...
basically just 2: attack bonus and damage (scaling) factor, instead of 5 or more: attack bonus, damage dice, damage bonus, crit range, crit multiplier
(plus conditional modifiers of those, e.g. +attack only to confirm crits, damage bonuses that don't multiply on crits, etc.)
The Tier system (changing the bell curve for rolls without changing minimum or maximum results) is pretty much all about having a SMALLER numerical difference between low/high level characters, while still making that level difference signifigant... Seemingly a perfect solution for GW's stated goals of flatter but not flat power levels.
The d20 system as a whole is LESS amenable to accurately 'grokking' because of it's multi-variable nature, between attack bonus vs. AC, crit range, crit multiplier, and descending iteratives, with 1 'always miss' and 20 'always hit'. People need to use computerized tools for analysing Pathfinder d20 characters ("DPR Olympics Spreadsheet"), to understand the changing benefit of +attack, +damage, and Crit variables for different characters vs. different enemies. (+/-1 DOESN'T consistently change the outcome of a d20 roll by 5%, that depends on existing bonuses and the DC, along with automiss and autohit chances)
The presented system for PFO is ultimately more simple to analyze/understand because everything is happening on the same 'plane', even different Tiers of Resistance are resolved as flat modifiers to Resistance (equal to their statistical offensive effect). I'm sure there will be resources, in-game or out, that let you plug in your character stats and compare different gear with different bonuses/Tier, and see what is optimal (all that type of stuff varies just as much in Pathfinder/d20). But ultimately, that level of 'accuracy' isn't really needed to play the game, the basic knowledge that you can get from that sort of analysis will filter out in other forms like guides, as well as just being reflected in things like market prices for gear.
------------------
I would imagine that as a 'tutorial' or 'demo' of the rules, GW would give clear examples of how it works, to show 'what happens when you add 100 to your attack score', e.g. attack roll exactly meets resistance 'R' = do A damage, attack roll fails resistance 'R' by 100 = do X% less damage = B damage, attack rolls beats resistance 'R' by 100 = do X% more damage * damage factor = Y% more damage, which = C damage... And the same comparisons with a different Resistance to see how that changes the relative value of 100.
Otherwise, attack bonus and resistance are directly comparable, and damage variation is just a derivative of attack vs. resistance, pretty easy to understand in concept. So... I'm sure it can (and should) be explained a bit more clearly/concretely when the game is public, but there is no insurmountable obstacle there that I can see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think a big plus for me in the way the system is designed is the flexibility for characters. Although it does make things rather complex when compared to PnP it does enable attacks and abilities to vary from each other.
For example, instead of just boosting the damage of an attack, they can:
Lower AC
Lower Phys Resistance
Lower Damage reduction from missing
Increase Damage Factor
Which all at the end of the day increase damage.
So instead of my sneak attack just doing Xd6 sneak attack damage, or my power attack adding +X damage, my sneak could ignore X x 10% of a characters physical resistance due to the attack hitting a vital organ, and my power attack increase my damage factor by .X.
Well if the figures are accurate, which ill leave that to others to verify :p then the T2&3 weaps seem to be hitting T1&2 armor really hard. Given the level curve I would sure hate to be a lower level player in either T1 or 2 armor facing a T 2 or 3 weapon, especially one with +'s!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Looks to me like the difference between a fresh character, a T1, a T2, a T3, and a max character is that 2 against 1 makes a fair fight. Which is approximately the difference in most MMOs of characters about 5 levels apart. Think the difference between level 3/6/10/14/18 characters in LoL. I don't think the system as illustrated is quite as flat as GW has been communicating, however it's still pretty darn flat (except for crit rates!).
Thanks for this. I just don't understand the system enough to be able to attempt any really accurate answers. :)
Considering the above, iirc, I think Mark Kalmes mentioned that a power difference between highest and lowest would be at most x5. Does the above fit that (assuming I'm not making it up) or put another way: What is the maximum difference between most powerful and least?
The x5 level difference is correct. I recall it being mentioned more then once.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
These numbers are not rounded, simplified, or approximated. I wish formatting were better.
Import into your spreadsheet of choice or check the anydice links for 'equal or better' and similar applied statistics.
Full distribution profile: (BIG)
(lowest 1 of 3d200) Anydice
# Times out of 8000000 %
1 119401 1.4925125%
2 118207 1.4775875%
3 117019 1.4627375%
4 115837 1.4479625%
5 114661 1.4332625%
6 113491 1.4186375%
7 112327 1.4040875%
8 111169 1.3896125%
9 110017 1.3752125%
10 108871 1.3608875%
11 107731 1.3466375%
12 106597 1.3324625%
13 105469 1.3183625%
14 104347 1.3043375%
15 103231 1.2903875%
16 102121 1.2765125%
17 101017 1.2627125%
18 99919 1.2489875%
19 98827 1.2353375%
20 97741 1.2217625%
21 96661 1.2082625%
22 95587 1.1948375%
23 94519 1.1814875%
24 93457 1.1682125%
25 92401 1.1550125%
26 91351 1.1418875%
27 90307 1.1288375%
28 89269 1.1158625%
29 88237 1.1029625%
30 87211 1.0901375%
31 86191 1.0773875%
32 85177 1.0647125%
33 84169 1.0521125%
34 83167 1.0395875%
35 82171 1.0271375%
36 81181 1.0147625%
37 80197 1.0024625%
38 79219 0.9902375%
39 78247 0.9780875%
40 77281 0.9660125%
41 76321 0.9540125%
42 75367 0.9420875%
43 74419 0.9302375%
44 73477 0.9184625%
45 72541 0.9067625%
46 71611 0.8951375%
47 70687 0.8835875%
48 69769 0.8721125%
49 68857 0.8607125%
50 67951 0.8493875%
51 67051 0.8381375%
52 66157 0.8269625%
53 65269 0.8158625%
54 64387 0.8048375%
55 63511 0.7938875%
56 62641 0.7830125%
57 61777 0.7722125%
58 60919 0.7614875%
59 60067 0.7508375%
60 59221 0.7402625%
61 58381 0.7297625%
62 57547 0.7193375%
63 56719 0.7089875%
64 55897 0.6987125%
65 55081 0.6885125%
66 54271 0.6783875%
67 53467 0.6683375%
68 52669 0.6583625%
69 51877 0.6484625%
70 51091 0.6386375%
71 50311 0.6288875%
72 49537 0.6192125%
73 48769 0.6096125%
74 48007 0.6000875%
75 47251 0.5906375%
76 46501 0.5812625%
77 45757 0.5719625%
78 45019 0.5627375%
79 44287 0.5535875%
80 43561 0.5445125%
81 42841 0.5355125%
82 42127 0.5265875%
83 41419 0.5177375%
84 40717 0.5089625%
85 40021 0.5002625%
86 39331 0.4916375%
87 38647 0.4830875%
88 37969 0.4746125%
89 37297 0.4662125%
90 36631 0.4578875%
91 35971 0.4496375%
92 35317 0.4414625%
93 34669 0.4333625%
94 34027 0.4253375%
95 33391 0.4173875%
96 32761 0.4095125%
97 32137 0.4017125%
98 31519 0.3939875%
99 30907 0.3863375%
100 30301 0.3787625%
101 29701 0.3712625%
102 29107 0.3638375%
103 28519 0.3564875%
104 27937 0.3492125%
105 27361 0.3420125%
106 26791 0.3348875%
107 26227 0.3278375%
108 25669 0.3208625%
109 25117 0.3139625%
110 24571 0.3071375%
111 24031 0.3003875%
112 23497 0.2937125%
113 22969 0.2871125%
114 22447 0.2805875%
115 21931 0.2741375%
116 21421 0.2677625%
117 20917 0.2614625%
118 20419 0.2552375%
119 19927 0.2490875%
120 19441 0.2430125%
121 18961 0.2370125%
122 18487 0.2310875%
123 18019 0.2252375%
124 17557 0.2194625%
125 17101 0.2137625%
126 16651 0.2081375%
127 16207 0.2025875%
128 15769 0.1971125%
129 15337 0.1917125%
130 14911 0.1863875%
131 14491 0.1811375%
132 14077 0.1759625%
133 13669 0.1708625%
134 13267 0.1658375%
135 12871 0.1608875%
136 12481 0.1560125%
137 12097 0.1512125%
138 11719 0.1464875%
139 11347 0.1418375%
140 10981 0.1372625%
141 10621 0.1327625%
142 10267 0.1283375%
143 9919 0.1239875%
144 9577 0.1197125%
145 9241 0.1155125%
146 8911 0.1113875%
147 8587 0.1073375%
148 8269 0.1033625%
149 7957 0.0994625%
150 7651 0.0956375%
151 7351 0.0918875%
152 7057 0.0882125%
153 6769 0.0846125%
154 6487 0.0810875%
155 6211 0.0776375%
156 5941 0.0742625%
157 5677 0.0709625%
158 5419 0.0677375%
159 5167 0.0645875%
160 4921 0.0615125%
161 4681 0.0585125%
162 4447 0.0555875%
163 4219 0.0527375%
164 3997 0.0499625%
165 3781 0.0472625%
166 3571 0.0446375%
167 3367 0.0420875%
168 3169 0.0396125%
169 2977 0.0372125%
170 2791 0.0348875%
171 2611 0.0326375%
172 2437 0.0304625%
173 2269 0.0283625%
174 2107 0.0263375%
175 1951 0.0243875%
176 1801 0.0225125%
177 1657 0.0207125%
178 1519 0.0189875%
179 1387 0.0173375%
180 1261 0.0157625%
181 1141 0.0142625%
182 1027 0.0128375%
183 919 0.0114875%
184 817 0.0102125%
185 721 0.0090125%
186 631 0.0078875%
187 547 0.0068375%
188 469 0.0058625%
189 397 0.0049625%
190 331 0.0041375%
191 271 0.0033875%
192 217 0.0027125%
193 169 0.0021125%
194 127 0.0015875%
195 91 0.0011375%
196 61 0.0007625%
197 37 0.0004625%
198 19 0.0002375%
199 7 0.0000875%
200 1 0.0000125%
(Middle 1 of 3d200) Anydice
# % Number of times out of 800000
1 0.0074750% 598
2 0.0223250% 1786
3 0.0370250% 2962
4 0.0515750% 4126
5 0.0659750% 5278
6 0.0802250% 6418
7 0.0943250% 7546
8 0.1082750% 8662
9 0.1220750% 9766
10 0.1357250% 10858
11 0.1492250% 11938
12 0.1625750% 13006
13 0.1757750% 14062
14 0.1888250% 15106
15 0.2017250% 16138
16 0.2144750% 17158
17 0.2270750% 18166
18 0.2395250% 19162
19 0.2518250% 20146
20 0.2639750% 21118
21 0.2759750% 22078
22 0.2878250% 23026
23 0.2995250% 23962
24 0.3110750% 24886
25 0.3224750% 25798
26 0.3337250% 26698
27 0.3448250% 27586
28 0.3557750% 28462
29 0.3665750% 29326
30 0.3772250% 30178
31 0.3877250% 31018
32 0.3980750% 31846
33 0.4082750% 32662
34 0.4183250% 33466
35 0.4282250% 34258
36 0.4379750% 35038
37 0.4475750% 35806
38 0.4570250% 36562
39 0.4663250% 37306
40 0.4754750% 38038
41 0.4844750% 38758
42 0.4933250% 39466
43 0.5020250% 40162
44 0.5105750% 40846
45 0.5189750% 41518
46 0.5272250% 42178
47 0.5353250% 42826
48 0.5432750% 43462
49 0.5510750% 44086
50 0.5587250% 44698
51 0.5662250% 45298
52 0.5735750% 45886
53 0.5807750% 46462
54 0.5878250% 47026
55 0.5947250% 47578
56 0.6014750% 48118
57 0.6080750% 48646
58 0.6145250% 49162
59 0.6208250% 49666
60 0.6269750% 50158
61 0.6329750% 50638
62 0.6388250% 51106
63 0.6445250% 51562
64 0.6500750% 52006
65 0.6554750% 52438
66 0.6607250% 52858
67 0.6658250% 53266
68 0.6707750% 53662
69 0.6755750% 54046
70 0.6802250% 54418
71 0.6847250% 54778
72 0.6890750% 55126
73 0.6932750% 55462
74 0.6973250% 55786
75 0.7012250% 56098
76 0.7049750% 56398
77 0.7085750% 56686
78 0.7120250% 56962
79 0.7153250% 57226
80 0.7184750% 57478
81 0.7214750% 57718
82 0.7243250% 57946
83 0.7270250% 58162
84 0.7295750% 58366
85 0.7319750% 58558
86 0.7342250% 58738
87 0.7363250% 58906
88 0.7382750% 59062
89 0.7400750% 59206
90 0.7417250% 59338
91 0.7432250% 59458
92 0.7445750% 59566
93 0.7457750% 59662
94 0.7468250% 59746
95 0.7477250% 59818
96 0.7484750% 59878
97 0.7490750% 59926
98 0.7495250% 59962
99 0.7498250% 59986
100 0.7499750% 59998
101 0.7499750% 59998
102 0.7498250% 59986
103 0.7495250% 59962
104 0.7490750% 59926
105 0.7484750% 59878
106 0.7477250% 59818
107 0.7468250% 59746
108 0.7457750% 59662
109 0.7445750% 59566
110 0.7432250% 59458
111 0.7417250% 59338
112 0.7400750% 59206
113 0.7382750% 59062
114 0.7363250% 58906
115 0.7342250% 58738
116 0.7319750% 58558
117 0.7295750% 58366
118 0.7270250% 58162
119 0.7243250% 57946
120 0.7214750% 57718
121 0.7184750% 57478
122 0.7153250% 57226
123 0.7120250% 56962
124 0.7085750% 56686
125 0.7049750% 56398
126 0.7012250% 56098
127 0.6973250% 55786
128 0.6932750% 55462
129 0.6890750% 55126
130 0.6847250% 54778
131 0.6802250% 54418
132 0.6755750% 54046
133 0.6707750% 53662
134 0.6658250% 53266
135 0.6607250% 52858
136 0.6554750% 52438
137 0.6500750% 52006
138 0.6445250% 51562
139 0.6388250% 51106
140 0.6329750% 50638
141 0.6269750% 50158
142 0.6208250% 49666
143 0.6145250% 49162
144 0.6080750% 48646
145 0.6014750% 48118
146 0.5947250% 47578
147 0.5878250% 47026
148 0.5807750% 46462
149 0.5735750% 45886
150 0.5662250% 45298
151 0.5587250% 44698
152 0.5510750% 44086
153 0.5432750% 43462
154 0.5353250% 42826
155 0.5272250% 42178
156 0.5189750% 41518
157 0.5105750% 40846
158 0.5020250% 40162
159 0.4933250% 39466
160 0.4844750% 38758
161 0.4754750% 38038
162 0.4663250% 37306
163 0.4570250% 36562
164 0.4475750% 35806
165 0.4379750% 35038
166 0.4282250% 34258
167 0.4183250% 33466
168 0.4082750% 32662
169 0.3980750% 31846
170 0.3877250% 31018
171 0.3772250% 30178
172 0.3665750% 29326
173 0.3557750% 28462
174 0.3448250% 27586
175 0.3337250% 26698
176 0.3224750% 25798
177 0.3110750% 24886
178 0.2995250% 23962
179 0.2878250% 23026
180 0.2759750% 22078
181 0.2639750% 21118
182 0.2518250% 20146
183 0.2395250% 19162
184 0.2270750% 18166
185 0.2144750% 17158
186 0.2017250% 16138
187 0.1888250% 15106
188 0.1757750% 14062
189 0.1625750% 13006
190 0.1492250% 11938
191 0.1357250% 10858
192 0.1220750% 9766
193 0.1082750% 8662
194 0.0943250% 7546
195 0.0802250% 6418
196 0.0659750% 5278
197 0.0515750% 4126
198 0.0370250% 2962
199 0.0223250% 1786
200 0.0074750% 598
(highest 1 of 3d200) Anydice
# Times out of 8000000 %
1 1 0.0000125%
2 7 0.0000875%
3 19 0.0002375%
4 37 0.0004625%
5 61 0.0007625%
6 91 0.0011375%
7 127 0.0015875%
8 169 0.0021125%
9 217 0.0027125%
10 271 0.0033875%
11 331 0.0041375%
12 397 0.0049625%
13 469 0.0058625%
14 547 0.0068375%
15 631 0.0078875%
16 721 0.0090125%
17 817 0.0102125%
18 919 0.0114875%
19 1027 0.0128375%
20 1141 0.0142625%
21 1261 0.0157625%
22 1387 0.0173375%
23 1519 0.0189875%
24 1657 0.0207125%
25 1801 0.0225125%
26 1951 0.0243875%
27 2107 0.0263375%
28 2269 0.0283625%
29 2437 0.0304625%
30 2611 0.0326375%
31 2791 0.0348875%
32 2977 0.0372125%
33 3169 0.0396125%
34 3367 0.0420875%
35 3571 0.0446375%
36 3781 0.0472625%
37 3997 0.0499625%
38 4219 0.0527375%
39 4447 0.0555875%
40 4681 0.0585125%
41 4921 0.0615125%
42 5167 0.0645875%
43 5419 0.0677375%
44 5677 0.0709625%
45 5941 0.0742625%
46 6211 0.0776375%
47 6487 0.0810875%
48 6769 0.0846125%
49 7057 0.0882125%
50 7351 0.0918875%
51 7651 0.0956375%
52 7957 0.0994625%
53 8269 0.1033625%
54 8587 0.1073375%
55 8911 0.1113875%
56 9241 0.1155125%
57 9577 0.1197125%
58 9919 0.1239875%
59 10267 0.1283375%
60 10621 0.1327625%
61 10981 0.1372625%
62 11347 0.1418375%
63 11719 0.1464875%
64 12097 0.1512125%
65 12481 0.1560125%
66 12871 0.1608875%
67 13267 0.1658375%
68 13669 0.1708625%
69 14077 0.1759625%
70 14491 0.1811375%
71 14911 0.1863875%
72 15337 0.1917125%
73 15769 0.1971125%
74 16207 0.2025875%
75 16651 0.2081375%
76 17101 0.2137625%
77 17557 0.2194625%
78 18019 0.2252375%
79 18487 0.2310875%
80 18961 0.2370125%
81 19441 0.2430125%
82 19927 0.2490875%
83 20419 0.2552375%
84 20917 0.2614625%
85 21421 0.2677625%
86 21931 0.2741375%
87 22447 0.2805875%
88 22969 0.2871125%
89 23497 0.2937125%
90 24031 0.3003875%
91 24571 0.3071375%
92 25117 0.3139625%
93 25669 0.3208625%
94 26227 0.3278375%
95 26791 0.3348875%
96 27361 0.3420125%
97 27937 0.3492125%
98 28519 0.3564875%
99 29107 0.3638375%
100 29701 0.3712625%
101 30301 0.3787625%
102 30907 0.3863375%
103 31519 0.3939875%
104 32137 0.4017125%
105 32761 0.4095125%
106 33391 0.4173875%
107 34027 0.4253375%
108 34669 0.4333625%
109 35317 0.4414625%
110 35971 0.4496375%
111 36631 0.4578875%
112 37297 0.4662125%
113 37969 0.4746125%
114 38647 0.4830875%
115 39331 0.4916375%
116 40021 0.5002625%
117 40717 0.5089625%
118 41419 0.5177375%
119 42127 0.5265875%
120 42841 0.5355125%
121 43561 0.5445125%
122 44287 0.5535875%
123 45019 0.5627375%
124 45757 0.5719625%
125 46501 0.5812625%
126 47251 0.5906375%
127 48007 0.6000875%
128 48769 0.6096125%
129 49537 0.6192125%
130 50311 0.6288875%
131 51091 0.6386375%
132 51877 0.6484625%
133 52669 0.6583625%
134 53467 0.6683375%
135 54271 0.6783875%
136 55081 0.6885125%
137 55897 0.6987125%
138 56719 0.7089875%
139 57547 0.7193375%
140 58381 0.7297625%
141 59221 0.7402625%
142 60067 0.7508375%
143 60919 0.7614875%
144 61777 0.7722125%
145 62641 0.7830125%
146 63511 0.7938875%
147 64387 0.8048375%
148 65269 0.8158625%
149 66157 0.8269625%
150 67051 0.8381375%
151 67951 0.8493875%
152 68857 0.8607125%
153 69769 0.8721125%
154 70687 0.8835875%
155 71611 0.8951375%
156 72541 0.9067625%
157 73477 0.9184625%
158 74419 0.9302375%
159 75367 0.9420875%
160 76321 0.9540125%
161 77281 0.9660125%
162 78247 0.9780875%
163 79219 0.9902375%
164 80197 1.0024625%
165 81181 1.0147625%
166 82171 1.0271375%
167 83167 1.0395875%
168 84169 1.0521125%
169 85177 1.0647125%
170 86191 1.0773875%
171 87211 1.0901375%
172 88237 1.1029625%
173 89269 1.1158625%
174 90307 1.1288375%
175 91351 1.1418875%
176 92401 1.1550125%
177 93457 1.1682125%
178 94519 1.1814875%
179 95587 1.1948375%
180 96661 1.2082625%
181 97741 1.2217625%
182 98827 1.2353375%
183 99919 1.2489875%
184 101017 1.2627125%
185 102121 1.2765125%
186 103231 1.2903875%
187 104347 1.3043375%
188 105469 1.3183625%
189 106597 1.3324625%
190 107731 1.3466375%
191 108871 1.3608875%
192 110017 1.3752125%
193 111169 1.3896125%
194 112327 1.4040875%
195 113491 1.4186375%
196 114661 1.4332625%
197 115837 1.4479625%
198 117019 1.4627375%
199 118207 1.4775875%
200 119401 1.4925125%
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Additionally I don't get the angst about numbers, whether it is 4, 400 or 4,000 I'm not sure where it really matters if the system is built for a particular range of number.
I don't know, maybe I am just a not enough of a number-cruncher to get it. *shrugs*
I suppose it comes down to how nit picky the bonuses can be. IE if normal hits do 20 damage, average HP is 400, you can have bonuses that boost the damage by 1-10 which matter, but aren't overblown cutting it in half
where in with 4 HP, and the attack damage is normally 1, you can't do less than doubling damage, unless we are jumping into decimal numbers, which effectively does the same thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the blog post. I have two concerns:
1) I hope we don't experience inflation a year or two down the road with hitpoint counts doubling or tripling again, damage numbers doubling or tripling, etc. Somehow it cheapens the experience to me to see a floating -5,900 hit from a fireball as opposed to a -59 hit. I realize this is personal preference, but it's just that -- what I prefer. Numbers are a tool we're forced to use in order to quantify things. The more we use them, the less they mean.
2) I may have missed a discussion on this somewhere, but I also hope that hitpoints don't immediately regenerate to full a'la GW2. I would much prefer a slow over time natural regen rate (when out of combat, maybe) similar to DAoC. This does a couple of things, not the least of which are: create interdependence between characters, make for more meaningful cost-benefit choices when deciding when to enter into combat (and thus potentially lose hitpoints), create interesting cost-benefit choices when choosing player skillsets, plus it's a convenience excuse to create a campfire, create a little downtime and have a chat.
Plus, it's hard to cook potatoes without a heat source.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "Flash Heal All" is overdone. Downtime is not a bad thing. Heal spam Clerics and potion gulpers should pace themselves if they do not want to be caught with no reserve healing. Best to let "time heal all wounds". It doesn't have to be cripplingly slow, but it should be a noticable effort to get your party back to full health. The 30 second delay while rezzing and group healing is a bit much, don't you think?
Will death remove the effects of a crit? I'm a little worried that suicide will be regarded as a convenient way to neutralize such debuffs.
I like the idea of making healing take some time. Otherwise, guerilla tactics (like hit-and-run) will have less of an effect.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Worst-case scenario before buffs: A new character (+0 attack, +0 defense from skills) with a Tier 1 weapon versus a fully trained (+150 defense) character wielding Tier 3 (+150 base defense) will do 21.8 of maximum damage. Assuming that the higher-trained character has at least +100 to-hit skill, it doesn't matter what tier of weapon he has; he will do full max damage.
Four new characters will output 87.2 of the damage output of the skilled veteran until one of them dies (1/4 of the way through the fight), 65.4% of normal one-character max for the next 1/4, 43.6 for the third quarter, and 21.8 in the last quarter. Their total damage will be ~216% of their hit points, not quite enough to bring down someone with 3x their HP.
Five new characters working together add 109% damage to that total; if the skilled veteran has three times their individual HP and chooses to engage to the death, he brings down three and maybe four of the five before falling himself.
14 new characters take down a veteran without suffering any fatalities.
All of the above make certain further assumptions: Specifically, that multi-target attacks don't add significantly to total damage done and that weapons don't scale up significantly in total damage. There are probably a couple more assumptions I don't know I made.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Edit: Hey GW! Give us more math! For a chance to chew on this stuff some more I'd hit my head against your formulas and make spreadsheets with pretty graphs! =D
Kudos to GW for throwing the formulas at us when they know how we will rip them apart.
Waffley, I approve your math but there are still many unknowns. In the "newb hordes vs veteran" you mentioned AoE. There are also keywords, special abilities, consumables etc.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Decius, you're forgetting that characters will (as to how scaling works) do damage approximately proportionate to their health to each other. So the veteran with 3x HP will do 3x the damage, regardless of base defense. So each will do 21.8%/3 damage of the vet.
Lets continue with your math adjusted for this difference, but otherwise carrying all the same assumptions you had:
Veteran will have X hp and do Y damage. New char will have X/3 HP and do Y * 7.3% damage to Vet.
Four new characters will output 29.2% of the veteran's damage until one dies, then 21.9%, 14.6%, 7.3% ... They'll do 73% of the veteran's damage in all... enough to get him down by 24.6% health. Five would do little better, at 36.9%.
It will take nine new characters to take him down with maybe two remaining, sans AOE and other aspects.
It would take forty-two new characters to take him down without any fatalities... maybe.
Edit: Hey GW! Give us more math! For a chance to chew on this stuff some more I'd hit my head against your formulas and make spreadsheets with pretty graphs! =D
I specifically called out the 'same max damage' assumption, mostly because I don't have enough information to correctly model the complex effects as weapons and armor improve; I was guessing that each armor will be more effective against some things than others and that the swarm would use whatever weapon (Mace, sword, wand, symbol, or whatever) that was most effective against the armor being used, while using the armor type (robes, leather, plate...) that was most effective against the weapon being wielded. Being cheap, the swarm equipment is easier to change and replace than the veteran's, and having all of the unknowns cancel out makes the math easy. Wrong, but easy, and without more detailed information we can only speculate.
And speculate we shall!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also a note: The weapon/armor 3-tier system actually is very coarse instead of granular - and this could be easily made granular (....)
Agree. However this does not mean that the overall power curve is a stair with 3 steps.
The crafting blog suggests to me that higher tier weapons are made by overhooting the minimum quality by 100 or so. But it also reveals that different weapons have different minimum qualities.
so, something like:
T1 staff =q1, T1 shortsword =q20, T1 katana =q40, T2 staff =q101, etc, where the katana has better base stats than a staff.
If the skill trees work similar, then learning to use T2 simple weapons could be simpler than using T2 martial weapons which are simpler than using T2 exotic weapons.
so, it depends on how the skill trees are structured.
If (preferable) 'T2 simple weapons' and 'T2 swords' are fairly simple skills that require Archetype badges or stats, then fighters will progress from T1 staff to T1 katana to T2 staff to T2 katana, and the strategic choice would be what to slot and equip.
If the T2 skills however are far out on separate weapon skill brances, then each fighter will progress T1->T2->T3 (and the strategy would be in the build rather than than slots/equipment)
Note: the information below is throwing out a lot of math, partially simplified for readability.
I wonder how much having the exact formulas they are working with would change the results you guys are coming up with?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One problem with this is if weapon range and movement are important to combat a high level character in most cases should be able to limit the number of low level characters attacking him. Likewise he should have a higher player skill which has been stated will be important.
If they use a hex system, then 1 player could be surrounded by 6 close range characters, and 12 characters with spears for a total of 18.
or 42 bow men in range in a circle around him, so they wont friendly fire each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Worst-case scenario before buffs: A new character (+0 attack, +0 defense from skills) with a Tier 1 weapon versus a fully trained (+150 defense) character wielding Tier 3 (+150 base defense) will do 21.8 of maximum damage. Assuming that the higher-trained character has at least +100 to-hit skill, it doesn't matter what tier of weapon he has; he will do full max damage.
Four new characters will output 87.2 of the damage output of the skilled veteran until one of them dies (1/4 of the way through the fight), 65.4% of normal one-character max for the next 1/4, 43.6 for the third quarter, and 21.8 in the last quarter. Their total damage will be ~216% of their hit points, not quite enough to bring down someone with 3x their HP.
Five new characters working together add 109% damage to that total; if the skilled veteran has three times their individual HP and chooses to engage to the death, he brings down three and maybe four of the five before falling himself.
14 new characters take down a veteran without suffering any fatalities.
All of the above make certain further assumptions: Specifically, that multi-target attacks don't add significantly to total damage done and that weapons don't scale up significantly in total damage. There are probably a couple more assumptions I don't know I made.
Attacks or abilities that disable or hinder opponents on the veterans side...
and I'm guessing things like flanking bonus on the newbie side...tough to account for those sort of things though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In any event, the larger the number they use, the more granularity they allow for in results and integers tend to work better then decimals for calculations in many engines. Although it may feel more natural for the player in REPORTING said numbers through the UI to apply a filter that reduces the numbers to something easier to deal with. For example rather having the UI always do a /10 function when reporting HP to players...so actual 213 HP would be reported to the player as 21.3 HP damage.
I'm pretty ok with it as is, but once you start to get numbers in the 1,000's it starts to LOOK a little Monty-Python-esque even though it's really not as everything scales proportionately.
I don't like the Tier's though...it is too much of a big leap.. from one weapon quality to the next, and it seems to place to much emphasis on gear rather then player ability. Much rather they did away with the Tiers and did a more gradual increase in weapon/armor quality that scaled with the character, varrying base damage a little bit each grade rather then adding dice....or if they prefer rolling more lower number dice and SUMMING them. So instead of going from 1d200 to 2d200 and taking the best...going gradualy from 10 x d20 to 20 x d20 and SUMMING the best 10 rolls. Not sure if the latter would be too processor intensive...but the former (playing with base damage a little) shouldn't have any performance implications. Just as easy for a computer to use 42 in a calculation as it is to use 40. YMMV.
The combat system, so far, looks fairly standard MMO faire, though there are alot of details we haven't heard yet. The "keyword" stuff has some potential...though I'm not convinced it's being used in a manner that would, in effect, make it much different then the typical MMO...but there is some potential to be explored there. The 6 stamina in 6 seconds thing also has some potential, although alot of that may (IMO) be lost by allowing firing abilities without delay or cooldown...if animation lock is a significant factor in that regard.
Right now combat is looking just too similar to standard, plain jane, MMO combat for my taste....but again, there are still alot of details not covered yet that could change that rather dramaticaly. So I'm still reserving judgement on that front. YMMV.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I would suggest that the analysis would be far more interesting for T3 vs T2 instead of T3 vs T1.
Short answer: A T2 weapon user with no attack bonus trained versus a Tier 3 armor wearer with +150 defense bonus trained would do 29.84% of their max damage compared to 21.28% for a Tier 1 weapon user; that's similar to the damage increase gained by training attack +50 (consistent across most of the board, +1 weapon tier is ~ +50 attack; % of attacks that fully hit and potentially crit is also pretty much +50 attack per tier of weapon.). Meanwhile, the defense bonus for higher tier armor is always exactly equal to +50 defense.
so my question is, how do DDO and NWN do it?
Kind of difficult to explain the subtle and complex differences between DDO and PnP D&D. If you haven't yet, I recommend you go play DDO a little (it's F2P y'know). For one thing, it uses a spell point system and preparing spells only sets your effective "spells known" until you can rest and prepare different ones. It's just as described in Unearthed Arcana. Resting is restricted to very specific areas, so your SP aren't recovering as you're adventuring. You have to touch "shrines" which allow you to rest in their vicinity or be in the city itself outside of any active adventure. Other mechanics are mostly the way PnP works mathematically, but items and feats can be a bit different. Another major difference is the sort of "perk" system DDO rewards characters with as they gain levels, and these work a bit like miniature levels within your level... My main problem with DDO is the direction they've had to go in to appease the F2P masses. Spells are almost useless unless they deal direct damage or your save DCs are obscenely high and you can land Finger or Wail through astronomical SR. Utility spells and stuff just do not exist. The skill system is also largely ignorable -- except for UMD which most players consider "absolutely must have up to at least a certain minimum rank" for most character builds.
NWN and NWN2 are much more similar to PnP D&D, but again, many of the spells work in rather different ways and there are a great many spells entirely left out or which use a familiar name but do something entirely different. The feats and stuff work almost identically, but the way the engine handles your spellcasting levels means that the Mystic Theurge can never work unless you can crack into the engine itself and rewrite the code that handles it... And the original devs even deemed that to be too big a job to want to deal with. NWN1&2 are, essentially, single-player games, so your social skills are very much based around static social encounters, and ... they aren't really all that useful. Other skills like Sneak/Hide and Spot/Listen or Appraise are in the game, but they're horrible trap options that don't really do anything except waste your points. In a multiplayer persistent world they might do stuff depending on that specific server, but good luck with that. To play NWN2 especially you pretty much must have a great many community-created patches and mods to fix the broken stuff (like half the spells in vanilla install don't actually work... at all...) and to expand your build options.
Spending XP on improving passive stats feels like lazy design, to be honest.
Why? And how is "Open Lock" not a passive stat? Unless the act of picking a lock requires some sort of decision-making (aka a mini-game or something like a procedurally generated puzzle), then ... that is a "passive ability" by definition. Especially the way you describe with your having ranks in the skill simply increasing your chances of performing the task successfully.
If you have to buy increases in your character's power -- your saving throws are increased power, too. You have to buy your Ability Scores (unless your table uses dice to generate them, in which case you're still "buying" your Scores because you have a finite dice pool you must allocate). You have to purchase equipment like swords and armor. You have to buy and learn new spells... Saving throws are no different from armor except that you don't take it off to sleep.
If you have a choice about how to spend your XP... then just don't spend it on your saving throws. Buy something else that YOU want to buy with them.
And I'll enjoy casting my spells on you.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
If you have a choice about how to spend your XP... then just don't spend it on your saving throws. Buy something else that YOU want to buy with them.
Chiming in to express agreement with this. Having the option to invest in passive benefits in addition to active abilities increases the range of meaningful choices I can make as a player. And that increases my level of investment in my character and ultimately adds to my enjoyment. Good design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Waffleyone: Thanks so much for putting all this effort in, and for putting up the charts--most excellent work! Just want to check my understanding here:
1. Chart 6 seems pretty straightforward: a newer player w/ a T1W has about a 50% to crit against another player of the same tier, but almost no chance against a veteran T3D player, while a veteran player w/ a T3W has around a 60% chance to crit against another vet, but will crit continually against a T1D new player. is that right? If so, it seems like a steeper power curve than I gathered from earlier comments from GW.
2. Could you unpack chart 5 a little more? Perhaps use an example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have been seeing some people complaining about the power gap between T1 and T2 weapons, so I‘m going to say what I have been thinking.
The following is mostly speculation.
Let‘s say that the basic, no keywords T1 weapon costs one unit of money. Adding keywords cost an addional unit of money apiece. As such, a T1 weapon with six ketwords costs 7 units. Through the abuse of skills, all your attacks use an average of 3 keywords each. Now lets swipe some numbers from the blog. The basic longsword has 40 base damage, and a damage factor of 1.2. Basic heavy armor has a damage reduction of 27. So the standard hit with a longsword vs heavy armor deals (40-27)*1.2 damage, which is 15.6 damage. However, with some keywords thrown in, your base damage increases by 5 each. To use the previous example, your base damage increases by 15. So the new formula is (40+15-27)*1.2, which is 33.6 damage, a stunning 115% increase.
Now for more made up numbers. Lets say the standard, no keywords T2 weapon costs 10 units of money. So it costs more than the 6 keyword T1 weapon, but unless the boost to accuracy is enough to double your damage, it‘s not worth it.
I tried to calculate how much you have to be missing by for the jump from a three keyword T1 to a no keyword T2 to be worth it, but I think I messed up somewhere. Wolfram Alpha said that you would have to be missing by over 400 before the two weapons are equal, but that can‘t be right. Could someone else take a stab at it? I assumed a +50 in accuracy from T1 to T2, and needed doubling in damage from a plain T1 to a plain T2.
Edit: thought some more, realized I should have subtracted somthing I was adding, and got an answer of 340ish. That‘s missing by 340ish. And before you say that you should just get a T2 weapon with keywords, what if the cost goes up exponentionally? Adding a keyword to a T2 weapon may cost 10 units of money. (Again, more numbers from thin air.)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Golnor: Your math is right. A tier 1 weapon will on average 6.68% of its maximum damage when the attack skill is 340 points below the defense skill. A tier 2 weapon will average 13.71% of its max damage at that point; if the tier 1 weapon does double the max damage of the tier 2 weapon, and neither changes the attack bonus, that's roughly where they break even. Neither ever does full damage/threatens in that zone.
Now, compare armor with 4 usable keywords granting +3 resistance each (or just masterwork for +12) to Tier 2 armor. I think that the armor with more keywords will win out, but I haven't added that math to my spreadsheet yet. I was hoping for numbers from a developer, but I suspect that they might end up considering the numbers that we suggest based on our playing with the math.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
No fancy graphs, lots of ugly hacks, and if you enter invalid data the entire thing dies, but you can plug in any level of training for attack and defense, any results for the equipment variables we know about (Tier, damage resistance, base damage, damage factor, and relative speed), and see the results update in quickly. Play with the numbers a bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hm, I have to say, with an competent knowledge of excel, very basic programming knowledge, high school and science degree background in maths and stats, and no understanding of pathfinder combat, the above information is still too obscure for me to appreciate. Any "for dummies" renditions would go that extra yard here. ;)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Few questions on the spreadsheet, did you arbitrarily assign numbers to speed, weapon factor and armour?
Where I could find numbers from the blog (resistance and longsword stats) I used those. Otherwise I made numbers up that intuited right. Basically, I took longsword as the baseline if you drop a size group you get -5 damage, +.2 factor, and +.1 speed; blunt weapons got a similar flat adjustment from slashing weapons of the same size. I didn't make any attempt to figure out how balanced those numbers are, I just wanted to have some variation on weapons vs. armor.
|
You mention Teir 1, 2 and 3 gear. I would like to see Teir 1 gear being the only thing available to be crafed and then having an Inventor or Research type skill (like in Eve) where all the Teir 2 & 3 gear has to be invented, perfected and learned before it can be mass produced. This so make crafting much more enjoyable.