[0.10] Constant Damage Scaling

What is a problem about the 1.3 scenario described below?

  • There is no problem. The 1.3 level of constant damage is just fine.

    Votes: 3 6.4%
  • +Damage (Slayer, Damage Aura) Magic Items are a problem and should be toned down or removed.

    Votes: 38 80.9%
  • "double damage from" Vulnerabilities are a problem and should be toned down or removed.

    Votes: 15 31.9%
  • Weapon Proficiency and Backstab are a problem and should be scaled somehow (maybe not 0.10's method)

    Votes: 18 38.3%
  • High Level Characters are a problem and build should be capped so there is an absolute maximum.

    Votes: 19 40.4%
  • Fighter/Rogue skill choice is a problem; if there were more options people wouldn't buy so much dmg

    Votes: 28 59.6%

  • Total voters
    47

Alavatar

Baron
Personally, I am a fan of capping specific things instead of an overarching Build cap. For instance, cap the number of Weapon Profs, Backstabs, and Spell Columns a character can purchase; this then caps many of the other existing skills in 1.3. If a character reaches the cap in one thing they can either start building in another thing or Production skills.
 

Tantarus

Knight
Personally, I am a fan of capping specific things instead of an overarching Build cap. For instance, cap the number of Weapon Profs, Backstabs, and Spell Columns a character can purchase; this then caps many of the other existing skills in 1.3. If a character reaches the cap in one thing they can either start building in another thing or Production skills.
I feel like this makes everyone templars/adepts/scouts over time. Which may not be a bad thing, being a 39th templar, which is effectively a 19th fighter and 11th scholar.
 

Alavatar

Baron
I feel like this makes everyone templars/adepts/scouts over time. Which may not be a bad thing, being a 39th templar, which is effectively a 19th fighter and 11th scholar.
Yes, it would for a vast majority of people. Some might be incentivized to dip into Production skills to supplement their capped abilities, which makes Treasure Policy more important. But that would be the trade off for the game to limit the power disparity of levels between low and high level characters.

I should add that I would expect to either remove High Magic completely, or just remove Elemental Burst Pool and Healer's Resolve (while maintaining existing Cloak/Bane caps tied to # of 9th level spells).
 

Mark of Chaos

Artisan
Denver Staff
One of my favorite parts about the beta rules is the decoupling of fighter and rogue skills from their damage increase-ers. That, combined with the magic item changes and including those professions under the class skills, seems like it would already shave a healthy percent off the top end static damage being swung. Solve all the problems? No. But seems like a great start. I go back and forth on whether scaling or a cap is necessary, having no real experience with the high level game being played out there.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
I feel that the cherry picked fighter situation is just that. How many 45th+ level fighters are there in a chapter?
Here's a better solution. Take your 45th level fighter with their DA and slayer/reaver and peg them with a web. Done. So the issue is magic items, pull em. That fighter, if they swing for 100's will still be a 2 spell kill.
In your scenario, in stead of adding body, add lives to the npc.
 
I feel that the cherry picked fighter situation is just that. How many 45th+ level fighters are there in a chapter?
Here's a better solution. Take your 45th level fighter with their DA and slayer/reaver and peg them with a web. Done. So the issue is magic items, pull em. That fighter, if they swing for 100's will still be a 2 spell kill.
In your scenario, in stead of adding body, add lives to the npc.
Except that only solves part of the problem.

The second part of the problem has to do with disparity between PCs. Take any two casters (ignoring wands and high magic for a moment) and put them in a fight together. As long as the first one is at least 7th level, that caster has access to every single spell that the 40th level caster next to them has. The total number is smaller, which means they run out of steam much quicker in the long run, but in any single fight that caster can contribute equally if they are willing to go all out. Heck, even a 5th level caster basically has the same set of options (since low and medium level spells tend to be the bread and butter spells of the game).

A 7th level fighter, though, is going to feel all but useless in that same situation. Even with complete focus on profs, they swing at best 6 damage with sword and board, compared to the 40th level fighter who can be nearly 5 times that number. Drop the fighter down to 5th and they feel even more useless, even compared to a 20th level fighter (the average for many chapters).

Scaling back profs so that the difference between low level fighters and average level fighters (roughly 20) is less extreme helps make all PCs feel more useful. The disparity will never fully disappear, but it helps if we can, as a game, make it feel less daunting.

*********************

My current instinct is that making fighter one-shot skills more enticing will help a lot. If Mettle cost 10 body points to guard instead of 10 seconds of time, it would definitely jump near the top of my "must-buy" list. Similarly, if Resolute was a skill that you spent when you went from 0 or -1 body to positive body (including after waking up a minute after first aid) to immediately heal an extra 10 body (maybe multiple could be spent at once), it would be much more enticing in my mind. Add maybe one more good fighter skill and I think proficiency purchases would drop notably.

Furthermore, my other current instinct is that maybe we should have a rule, across the board, where any skill costs double on your 5th or later purchase of it. That would slow down profs and backstab bloat AND also slow down casting bloat. Formal levels and crafting could have an exception that they don't double until the 11th or later purchase. I'm kinda spitballing, but this slows down progression overall without preventing people from focusing or putting an arbitrary hard cap on the game. It also would probably mean that we would no longer need such harsh pre-reqs for fighter and rogue skills.

-MS

P.S. - Magic items that duplicate profs / double damage also need to be nerfed HARD
 

Muir

Fighter
The issue is not and has never been that damage scaling is too good.

No system on earth can comfortably put level 45 and level 5 characters on the same field and have both come away challenged without bending over backwards.

The answer is, and has always been, that advancement needs to end somewhere if we want to have reliable scaling that doesn't require constant metagaming on the part of players to keep new PCs from being boatmurdered.

My inclination has generally been to steal an idea from Everquest (yes I'm old), and separate the combat build and crafting build systems. Put a hard cap at say level 20 on combat effective build, and any other build earned can only be spent on Craftsman and production skills.

Doesn't work well with some of the enhancements added in .10, but in 1.3 it's fairly workable.
 
Last edited:

DiscOH

Artisan
I don't really see the issue with high level players swinging for high numbers. If a level 30 is hitting as hard as two level 15s, it doesn't make the other players less useful.

I run around with people 2-3 times my level. I still feel like I contribute.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I think a build cap will lose a lot of friends I and my PC don't want to lose, and the world will be a more boring, shallower place without their decades of hilarious misadventures to draw on. I categorically think build caps are a bad idea, and the problems they ostensibly solve can be solved by savvy plot teams and conscious PCs.
I disagree with the concept that a rules issue (unchecked power creep, in this case) should be addressed by Plot teams.

A build cap is not only necessary, IMO, for the Alliance of today, but for the Alliance ten years from now.
 

Muir

Fighter
An excellent point. How many of those level 45 PC players do you expect will start over if they perm? How much does that pressure to keep their most reliable players consciously or unconsciously influence how plot teams scale?
 

Tantarus

Knight
An excellent point. How many of those level 45 PC players do you expect will start over if they perm? How much does that pressure to keep their most reliable players consciously or unconsciously influence how plot teams scale?
And is that really a bad thing to keep your core most consistent players happy and involved?

I will be honest. I am level 39, have played since I was 16 in 1994 back in Nero pre split. And if my character permed I am done. I have to much history and friends to start over. Which is why I am an earth templar with a rebirth and not the fighter I would prefer to play. Some people will think that is right or wrong, but I dont think I am alone.
 

MaxIrons

Squire
Oregon Staff
Marshal
Soooo... There is a solution, but I'm not sure how well it would go over. Compress the build curve, then reduce (1/2? 1/3?) the build on all characters past initial build. Then build accrual is appropriately slower.

Example (Using incorrect round numbers for ease): Steve's character, Lichlover, has 225 build and currently gets about 1 build per logistics period. Post rules change Lichlover drops to 125 build, and still only gains 1 build per logistics period.

If the compression is on target, even if you're going to every event via pay-no-play and blankets, you might get a new level every five years? decade? The specific power point is something that would need to be looked at, but it could be done.
 
And is that really a bad thing to keep your core most consistent players happy and involved?

I will be honest. I am level 39, have played since I was 16 in 1994 back in Nero pre split. And if my character permed I am done. I have to much history and friends to start over. Which is why I am an earth templar with a rebirth and not the fighter I would prefer to play. Some people will think that is right or wrong, but I dont think I am alone.
I don't know how to say this gently, but you aren't the kind of player that the game should be catering to. And I say that a person who has a nearly identical background (I started in 1993 at the age of 16).

I'm not saying that the game should ignore players like you (and me) completely, just that we should be prioritized lower than newer and younger players. We are, at best, the present, and more likely, the past of the game. For the most part, we don't meaningfully help the game grow, or even really maintain its size. Newer and younger players are the future. And catering to that crowd means trying to build rules that make the game more enjoyable for the first 20 levels of play, more so than the levels above that.

I don't speak for the ARC or the owners, but in my opinion, 75%+ of the rules and policy decisions that are made should be directed at making the game more enjoyable and accessible for newer and younger players. If older folks like you and me also benefit from those decisions, that is great. But if we don't, that is acceptable for the long term health of the game.

-MS
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
And is that really a bad thing to keep your core most consistent players happy and involved?
At the cost of long term survivability? Yes.

Honestly, those core players should have a better understanding than most that if the next generation of players do not replace the ones that are lost to natural attrition, the game ends.

How many people do you yourself know that used to play the game and no longer do? I’ve been playing for seven years, and I know plenty. But the game continues because of the next generation, and the one after that.

But eventually, unchecked power creep will absolutely end the stability of the game. That’s not crazy theory; a massive part of the reason 2.0 is a mess to complete is because of the growth that we’re trying to deal with already. Characters in their high 30s and 40s that have more power than the human-managed system can readily handle.

I believe that eventually a group of owners will realize this eventually and cap levels; I feel it’s simply too obvious of a solution. I don’t know when, but I think it’ll happen anyways.
 

Tantarus

Knight
but you aren't the kind of player that the game should be catering to.
Never asked to be catered to, But I did ask is it bad to take old players into account. And I think you should take all players into account. We are all paying customers new and old. I know that in Seattle they are doing an excellent job of balancing new and old players.

At the cost of long term survivability? Yes.
They are not mutually Exclusive. I know that in Seattle they are doing an excellent job of balancing new and old players. There will always be old players even if you cut off the current ones. Someone will always be on top curb.

Also I am pro magic item nerf in a big way. Even though I am about to make a 20 rit perm item in 3 days. I truly believe magic items in mass are a blight on the game. Coming from an era where we didnt have magic items for years when I was low level.

I am also not against a level cap. Attrition is a real problem for the game. And honestly I dont see much in 2.0 to lead me to believe it will change anything in regard to it. Fighters are way more complex in 2.0 then 1.3, I consider them the entry level class for new players.

I do think 2.0 should be refocused on making the game easier to play. As you can see from the poll on my other thread, most people think that 2.0 is the same or more complex then 1.3, and not by a small margin. This helps both new and old players.
 

Muir

Fighter
Never asked to be catered to, But I did ask is it bad to take old players into account. And I think you should take all players into account. We are all paying customers new and old. I know that in Seattle they are doing an excellent job of balancing new and old players.



They are not mutually Exclusive. I know that in Seattle they are doing an excellent job of balancing new and old players. There will always be old players even if you cut off the current ones. Someone will always be on top curb.

Also I am pro magic item nerf in a big way. Even though I am about to make a 20 rit perm item in 3 days. I truly believe magic items in mass are a blight on the game. Coming from an era where we didnt have magic items for years when I was low level.

I am also not against a level cap. Attrition is a real problem for the game. And honestly I dont see much in 2.0 to lead me to believe it will change anything in regard to it. Fighters are way more complex in 2.0 then 1.3, I consider them the entry level class for new players.

I do think 2.0 should be refocused on making the game easier to play. As you can see from the poll on my other thread, most people think that 2.0 is the same or more complex then 1.3, and not by a small margin. This helps both new and old players.
I'll be blunt about my opinions. This game works between levels 1 and maybe 25. Supporting those high end characters eats time the plot team could be spending growing their playerbase and building new long-term players out of newbies. Statistically, we get one, maybe two shots to win someone over, and then they go do something else. This is not a hobby with a small initial investment, and the number of people who burn out and never come to a second event is huge.

We've started to see some of it around the edges with the Nobilty Agreements that SoMN and Chicago have that focus on the OOG responsibilities of playing a noble, but the top-end characters who have been in play for literal decades should be looking to move themselves into the background over time if not retire because it is nigh impossible to grow the player base if the same set of faces are always in the limelight.

The only problem I see with Damage Auras is that they are vastly more useful to everyone but a Fighter. It's a big failing in our rule, genre-wise, that the thing least useful to a Fighter as magic items go is a magic sword. At the very least, there needs to be a method implemented to stop the trend of every caster on the planet getting themselves a 90-build equivalent +3 DA. I've always liked tying it to weapon profs, probably in a 2:1 ratio. Wanna use that DA? Better have 2/4/6 profs in the bank already.
 

Tantarus

Knight
This game works between levels 1 and maybe 25.
I agree after level 25-30 game can break down fast. But Magic items and gobbie pick lists make this happen alot sooner. Build means almost nothing compared to a brick of well built magic items. Take away a level 45 fighters cloaks/banes, and now you can double tap them out of fights.

Supporting those high end characters eats time the plot team could be spending growing their playerbase and building new long-term players out of newbies.
Supporting your most loyal customers is bad... I just don't believe giving high levels and low levels attention is a mutually exclusive choice. And you realize those new players will eventually become older players, which you think should just be forsaken eventually.

the top-end characters who have been in play for literal decades should be looking to move themselves into the background over time if not retire because it is nigh impossible to grow the player base if the same set of faces are always in the limelight.
Be all you can't be, unless you want to be an older character, then just go die or retire? I was under the impression this game was for everyone. I didnt realize because I like my character and want to keep playing them the game was not for me. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the rule book in the future.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
Forcing a character to retire seems heavy handed. Capping build does not. I'm strongly in favor of capping build, or perhaps capping "non-crafting" based build. I'm not in favor of forcing a character to retire, let people RP to their heart's content. I'd personally cap build at level 30. Any build past this could go into a new character or crafting skills, or perhaps even a new track of abilities that don't break the game but give the advanced character very expensive goals to work towards that are balanced in the system like "Epic" D&D.
 

Melimir

Newbie
Asheville Staff
Well a potential solution that hasn't been mentioned is to increase character mortality rate. Reduce the number of stones in the bag, or remove buyback all together.
 
Top