[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

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
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.
That solution adversely effects new players who don't have crazy high power levels because they didn't grow up in a system that makes permanent death very difficult.
 

Tantarus

Knight
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.
If the goal is to retain people. Not sure this works toward that in the current era. When I was Low level in the 90s dying your first event was common. I had 3 deaths in my first year of playing, which was 4 or 5 events. But back then there was almost no competition in larps. And people where frankly made of sterner stuff :p
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
If the goal is to retain people. Not sure this works toward that in the current era. When I was Low level in the 90s dying your first event was common. I had 3 deaths in my first year of playing, which was 4 or 5 events. But back then there was almost no competition in larps. And people where frankly made of sterner stuff :p
Our chapter has very high death rates. I think death is good for story, especially if there is an expectation set that the world is gritty and dangerous.
 

Tantarus

Knight
Our chapter has very high death rates. I think death is good for story, especially if there is an expectation set that the world is gritty and dangerous.
I totally agree without risk there is no real thrill. I have ressed 14 times... 7 where on a bottle that got transfer enchantmented away back when that was a thing. More then 20 years ago. I played pretty rarely for a long time, and just got back to full time 7ish years ago. Now I play very conservatively as an earth templar, Rebirth is a hell of a thing. With higher death counts, it also forces higher level people like me to step out of the lime light if they want to stay alive in the long run.
 

Muir

Fighter
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.
Supporting your loyal customers is good, until it becomes supporting your loyal customers as they dwindle and you can't keep new people because they spent their first couple games feeling like background NPCs to those same customers. As much as we all wish there was an infinite well of manpower, energy, and time behind each plot staff, they have limited resources and mostly run on volunteers. I'm not about telling anyone they're a bad person for keeping playing a character they like. I'm just asking them to consider that maybe after a decade, it's time to ease back and see to it that other people get to feel important.

Ideally, a plot team should be able to lean on those players to help distribute plot, as their characters after that long of a career should be in position to have in-game authority to match their cards, and be involved more with that than circle beating every crunchy.
 

Muir

Fighter
If the goal is to retain people. Not sure this works toward that in the current era. When I was Low level in the 90s dying your first event was common. I had 3 deaths in my first year of playing, which was 4 or 5 events. But back then there was almost no competition in larps. And people where frankly made of sterner stuff :p
Back then I had a lot more time and money, and building a full character's set of reps and garb then driving eight hours to play in Kzoo wasn't a big deal. Today, with all the other competition for their entertainment dollar, and the state of wages for young people, how often are they going to budget for a perm?
 

Tantarus

Knight
I'm just asking them to consider that maybe after a decade, it's time to ease back and see to it that other people get to feel important.
Honestly I think this is fine. For me when I came back after a break, I just played side kick role for a few years. I find being in the spot light to be exhausting after a number of years. I am currently kinda in that spot light again in seattle do to attrition of players and other reasons. And after this campaign cycle I plan to try and step down from that some what.

Also do higher levels really crunchy bash in some chapters? I think in seattle most the high levels do the "this is not for me" and direct someone more level appropriate to fight it. Only really killing them if people are in trouble and need help. I get why to do that oog and do not mind. But IG feels a bit weird when I am Knight and just wander past undead and leave them for others. Also I feel like it comes off elitist to some people.
 
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.
I don't think older players are the most loyal customers. You said it yourself. You are just one unlucky death away from never playing the game. That simply isn't true for the majority of younger players.

In my experience, if a newer player perms, usually they NPC for a while (anywhere from a few events to a few years) and then return with a new PC raring to go. Heck, if they already have a stable of characters, they often just jump into the next persona with almost no break at all. A perm doesn't mean a lost player for the majority of newer players.

The opposite is true for older players. The majority are like you. If they lose their primary character at an event, that was their last event. I've seen it happen more times than I can count.

And that is just one way that new players tend to be more loyal than older players. The other statistic that stands out for older players (at least in my neck of the woods) is that they rarely NPC. At some point in the career of the average Alliance player, there is a HUGE drop-off in NPCing. Sure, the occasional old-timer NPCs regularly, but the majority only NPC every few years at best.

None of that really looks like loyalty to me. If anything, it looks like privilege. And, while I already said that every player deserves some attention, I think that newer players deserve the lion's share of attention, because they are more likely to exhibit the type of loyalty that actually grows the game, rather than stagnates it.

-MS
 

Tantarus

Knight
While much of that is true I disagree with your conclusions. 20+ years of being a paying customer is loyalty not privilege. And while you are right about npcing, and it is great that newer players do it. PCs pay the bills and the site fees. Older players tend to have the extra money to donate, pay no play, etc. Where as in my experience younger new players tend to be broke college kids, hence the npcing. There is nothing wrong with either example.

A player that has 10 plus years invested, while they might quit if they perm, has alot more longevity in the game then the average player. New people come and go, they turn over at a high rate. Over the course of there play time in the game they put in a lot more money and time. Many of them tend to cycle into plot and staff positions.

And I feel like people are not hearing me when I say. These arent mutually exclusive positions, you can make both people happy. And it is fine focusing on the newer players, because the older players likely need less attention to stay invested.

I dont understand people demonizing older players, calling them privileged or saying they should retire or be ignored by plot. That seems crazy to me. If the goal is to turn over all the older more invested players.... 2.0 makes alot more sense to me now.
 

Auric

Administrator
Alliance General Manager
Alliance Logistics
I disagree a build/level cap is the answer. Things would grow stale, and you can only create so many other characters. Let's not forget to mention you would be forced to build your character a certain way in order to compete. Any mistakes and you will fall behind the streamlined characters in combat.
I know personally, I would have left this game long ago without the advancement aspect. I want my character to grow and get better.

I voted for +Damage (Slayer, Damage Aura) and double damage from*. I'd like to see both of these removed from the game. Double just simply breaks the game. +3DA is just handing out a ton of free build. If you are going to keep +3 make it a blacksmith craftable weapon, and shatterable. Allow it to be repaired but it would cost some sort of material to do it. Keep some risk and cost involved in using it.

The real problem is the fact that I can't be taken out of a fight thanks to the countless magic items. There needs to be a limit on how many take out effects I can shrug off, this goes for all classes. Give me only 5 cloaks (no banes, spell parry, etc) per logistics period and I guarantee I'll be playing differently, fear would be put back into my game for sure.

I also disagree new characters should be able to come in and do similar damage to me. I've put 19 years into my character, let them see what they can accomplish if they put that same time in. I was on the reverse end at one point too I had to get creative at times and take risks which only added to the excitement of the game for me. Like a few others said I think that difference can be dealt with plot-wise, keep scaling to me ignoring them and they will quit. I see the disappointment on new player faces too often when they are told no effect every fight. Some may not agree, but as a higher level character, I don't always need to be challenged. A town encounter doesn't always have to scale around me. Let me be bored, make me seek out challenges in mods or other areas of the game. Maybe that want to be challenged during a town encounter will encourage me to start a lower level character.
 

Ragnarok

Scout
Marshal
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
I believe in this very strongly. I think that characters should run their course and then retire or go out with a bang. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with people who want to play the same character for 10 years but I think it makes for healthier game over all if people slowly cycle out old characters and bring in new ones.
 

Samyania

Scholar
Seattle Staff
I believe in this very strongly. I think that characters should run their course and then retire or go out with a bang. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with people who want to play the same character for 10 years but I think it makes for healthier game over all if people slowly cycle out old characters and bring in new ones.
I couldn't disagree more. I think the game would seem a lot less consistent and have much less story and depth to it if we lost the tales and lessons from the 15- and 20-year characters. Most of the high-level PCs I know are more than willing to use their power and their knowledge to help the younger adventurers learn, if the lower-level PCs want to, and grow as characters. Also live to grow as characters.

If everyone's lives have an expiration date, we lose both our past, in that nobody has firsthand experience of the histories that have brought us where we are, and our future, in that we know we're going to die or be put on a bus (carriage?) once we get to A Certain Age.

I mean sure, we could stand to lose SOME crusty old hoblings*, but I GUESS we can find something to keep them around for.

(*This is a joke, I'm joking at the expense of some crusty old hobling friends who hopefully won't now be stabbing me hello in 36 hours)
 

Avaran

Baron
-
 
Last edited:

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I couldn't disagree more. I think the game would seem a lot less consistent and have much less story and depth to it if we lost the tales and lessons from the 15- and 20-year characters. Most of the high-level PCs I know are more than willing to use their power and their knowledge to help the younger adventurers learn, if the lower-level PCs want to, and grow as characters. Also live to grow as characters.

If everyone's lives have an expiration date, we lose both our past, in that nobody has firsthand experience of the histories that have brought us where we are, and our future, in that we know we're going to die or be put on a bus (carriage?) once we get to A Certain Age.

I mean sure, we could stand to lose SOME crusty old hoblings*, but I GUESS we can find something to keep them around for.

(*This is a joke, I'm joking at the expense of some crusty old hobling friends who hopefully won't now be stabbing me hello in 36 hours)
I agree, which is why I believe in a build cap, and not forced retirement.

(When I say build cap, I simply mean a point where characters no longer acquire XP. Just so we’re clear.)
 

Avaran

Baron
-
 
Last edited:

MondayMcGee

Scholar
San Francisco Staff
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize being frustrated with an aspect of the game as having an attitude problem. I have had that frustration, of feeling useless, feeling like I was set dressing or cannon fodder for the higher level players. I’ve had fun in spite of those frustrating moments, which is why I’m still here. And it’s why I’m participating in playtests, commenting here, etc —to try to improve the game, and make the frustrating parts less frustrating. I sincerely doubt I’m the only one who has felt this way, either, or else we wouldn’t be discussing rules changes to address the problem.
 

Avaran

Baron
-
 
Last edited:

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I feel like there is a responsibility on the Plot team to ensure that content is equitably distributed to its players, regardless of class or level, and that content so distributed is meaningful and relevant to the game at large. For example, I had the opportunity to collaborate with a fellow player last year to run a series of guest plot modules, and our focus was specifically on providing high production value and meaningful content to lower level characters.

From what I am hearing, it seems that cultural issues with PC’s, NPC’s, or staff members not adhering to high standards of out of character ethical behavior are contributing factors to many of these problems. It almost seems like some of these rules changes are being presented because individuals are afraid of having difficult conversations within their community about standards of behavior, and would rather overhaul the rules than overhaul their local or regional cultural issues through meaningful dialogue.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I don't know.

And frankly neither do you.
But I do.

I’ve played this game where even as a Formalist with 25+ Formal Levels, I’ve been told I wasn’t good enough because we had a Formalist in town who could True Empower and thus was the only person worth asking to cast a ritual. Not a single event, mind you, but years of them.

I’ve been in those fights where Daylynn alone made entire groups of PCs wonder why they even bothered leaving the tavern.

I reject the notion that high level characters will have less fun by having their abilities and power brought to reasonable limits. The game isn’t “How Powerful You Can Be.” The game has never been that. But it’s certainly been becoming that.
 
Top