[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

Tantarus

Squire
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.
I don't think anyone is really arguing this. I know I certainly think nerfs are needed. Though more on magic items then build. This feels like a strawman of people's positions. Honestly I think magic item nerfs will make the game more fun for high levels. As will the lack of golems.

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.
While I believe this is true and a bit of a flaw in how formals work now. I am not sure how to fix it though. Maybe remove or nerf true Empower. You did get to cast like 3 oblits over those years and are called Zeth, the Obliterator on the regular. Sometimes you have to find niches to feel useful.

That said, this is why I like spirit forge being in the game, if your build is not fun and working for you. Cause you should not have to deal with that forever. And with spirit forge, You can fix it. I certainly have done this alot.
 

Auric

Administrator
Alliance General Manager
Alliance Logistics
’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.
How would a cap where you and now every other scholar having the same 25 ranks fix this?

I’ve been in those fights where Daylynn alone made entire groups of PCs wonder why they even bothered leaving the tavern.
How was be able to do this, just build bought skills or with help of magic items to keep himself alive and in the fight?
 

Saephis

Squire
The topic of player responsibility is directly part of the "should (notably) high level characters exist or continue to grow" discussion. Its the responsible player that says "I swing for half of that creature's body, I'm leaving it alone", and the same player often finds places to mentor and teach lower level characters and less experienced players. In all honesty, the lack-of-roof setting was a draw for me years ago. Knowing that character growth was so available and dynamic allowed the above examples.

If build caps were "a thing", you'd see less viable character growth into grizzled-such-and-such, living off on their own, wanting to be left alone, but quietly saves abandoned or ambushed characters at night. You'd have fewer role models or examples of heroes that younger characters would aspire towards.

Would I stop playing if a cap came in? I don't know, it'd be a tough decision, and one dependent on details on the how. The change to saving experience from retired/black-beaded characters currently insulates the "start from scratch" thing that never feels good.

Anyways. This is off track to the constant damage scaling discussion, even if it semi-related.

If Fighter/Rogue damage is to continue towards the route of being chased down an alley and beaten to a pulp with a nerf bat, then damage on all levels needs to be analyzed. Leaving Celestial's burst damage -- and opening the vulnerabilities choice up to level-by-level choice -- is a bit hypocritical and continues to unbalance things in the favor of Celestialists. There's a reason so many on this forum have said "Screw every other build, I'm going Celestial with 2.0".
 

Saephis

Squire
How was be able to do this, just build bought skills or with help of magic items to keep himself alive and in the fight?
In short: Both.

A former-owner taking years of nationwide blankets on a character and a, frankly, ludicrous number of magic items to solo wave battles isn't what anything's designed for. It isn't an example of balance, I feel, but more of player responsibility.
 

Auric

Administrator
Alliance General Manager
Alliance Logistics
In short: Both.

A former-owner taking years of nationwide blankets on a character and a, frankly, ludicrous number of magic items to solo wave battles isn't what anything's designed for. It isn't an example of balance, I feel, but more of player responsibility.
I agree with that too.

My point for asking is we need to focus on what limiting magic items from this game does before blame levels.

My guess is without then he wouldn't be able to do that anymore.
 

Saephis

Squire
My point for asking is we need to focus on what limiting magic items from this game does before blame levels.

My guess is without then he wouldn't be able to do that anymore.
Having observed a few of these scenarios, when Plot's become aware of NPCs eventually just giving up and going "Okay, fine, hit me a couple times, yep, respawn", they adjust and find ways to hit the depletable magic items to cause panic (seeing people are yawning in boredom 30 feet away), and a resulting quick exit.

In a topic: Magic Item Reduction.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I strongly feel that the way in which items are used is critical. When they are used to the benefit of those around you, then they add to the positive game experience of others. When they are used in a more individual-centric fashion, then they detract from the game experience of others.

I believe that this is no different than a “higher level” character acting responsibly and promoting the enjoyment of those around them during a module or field battle, instead of trying to solo the content.

I feel that this, again, finds itself in “culture issue” territory.
 

MaxIrons

Squire
Oregon Staff
Marshal
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.
I've played under Avaran as HoP. I do these things as a plot member to ensure that low/mid/high players are all getting content. I'm not saying these things aren't all really good suggestions. I'm saying that the larger the gap between lowest and the highest level character at an event, the more difficult it is to make it fun for everyone. Not saying it can't be done, I have too much evidence to the contrary, but it is harder.

Even with all that has been said here about level caps, right now it's the least important of the reasons for weapon damage bloat in my opinion.

For 1.3 the biggest reason for weapon damage bloat is even if you didn't want more damage, you have to take it to do other things. You literally cannot do fighter things without raising your damage per swing.

After that, is most fighter skills are not as attractive as swinging big numbers. From least seen to most: Shatter, Disarm, Stun Limb, Eviscerate, Riposte, Slay, Parry. Those at the bottom are either way too situational, or are cheaper/more plentiful via other means. The number of discussions with fighters who told me as a young fighter, that the way to get ahead as a fighter is for the rest of your career to do prof, prof, parry, prof, prof, parry, riposte (repeat) was far too high. Every now and again I would get the "offense" build of prof, prof, parry, slay (repeat) instead.

I would love to build a character that took stupid amounts of stun limbs instead of adding to base damage. I can't. I can't in 1.3, or 0.10.

Magic items just add on to this. Just like expanded enchant allows for pocket casters, DA, MS, & RR allow for pocket fighters, especially since it is fairly simple to use a 30pt AA as a caster as a side effect of formal levels. I've _been_ that caster.

Finally and least, unlimited build accrual, or more accurately, build accrual plateaus too late. It's my personal opinion, and not one I'd try to force on all of Alliance, that by about level 25, you should be getting about a build every 5 events. At 30, maybe a build every 10. At 35 maybe a build a year. At 40, maybe every three years.

So... That's my piece on this. Y'all can argue the margins all you want, but in 1.3 and 2.0 as it stands now, weapon damage being high isn't a bug, it's there by design, because you can't be a fighter without it.
 

Saephis

Squire
From a safety standpoint -- if a Fighter is expected to be a "tank" build, they need something not-mind-control-y to hold attention of opponent(s). High(er) damage does that, and it keeps the hands of an opponent busy in blocking.

If someone's in the middle of someone trying to make someone else a smear, they'll look at how to get around them quickly, which starts to bring into question safety rules like charging.
 

Muir

Fighter
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.
Anecdotally, this is true for even me. I've played once since my main's AA got DFM'd, because I don't have the hobby budget for a new armor rep I'll pull out 3-4 times a year just this minute, and our chapter's under new ownership with new LCO policies so I don't have any way of replacing the AA. Not really their fault, in the scheme of things, it's how the game goes.

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.
For a majority of players, there is no way to have those conversations, because the people running the game are going to write and run what they want to write and run. That's their right, they own and run the chapters. Players can give feedback, but at the end of the day, the vote that matters is voting with your feet.

Part of why we are having this discussion is fending that off before it becomes 'wait why are 15 people showing up to my games'.
 
Last edited:

Saephis

Squire
Players can give feedback, but at the end of the day, the vote that matters is voting with your feet.
I cut out a bunch of what you wrote, but I feel like this is why a lot of people are so impassioned about the rules change. They've played, they at least like the majority of what they play with. A lot of these rules run that onto its head, looking nothing like what they know they enjoy. They don't want to make the decision to give their last input with their feet.

I know I don't, I'd rather play a game I enjoy, and see fine-tuning adjustments to meaningfully improve on what we already know people enjoy, rather than sweeping changes that turns Alliance into the Donatella Versace or Jocelyn Wildenstein of LARPs.

Go ahead and google the before and afters of those names. I'll wait. ;)
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
Re: people that feel high level characters are bad for the game. Remove all the banes, cloaks, spell parys and activates...then the level 2 scholar can take out the level 100 fighter with all those profs.
 

norman b

Squire
Oregon Staff
Marshal
So similar to @MaxIrons , what if damage wasnt a pre-req for other skills but the other way around. Make a weapon Prof require 30-45 xp spent in fighter skills and a back stab require 30-45 xp spent in rogue skills. Then, just get rid of back attack and crit attack. It would help with scaling, damage would be lessened.

You could keep the required 5 of each if you wanted, and trade in, but make it a cap of 5 so you wouldn't have to worry about a boost more than 10 with back attack.

There would need to be an adjustment to the other requirements, sure. But make it easier to get a few one shot abilities. I would prefer this to how it is currently actually.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Re: people that feel high level characters are bad for the game. Remove all the banes, cloaks, spell parys and activates...then the level 2 scholar can take out the level 100 fighter with all those profs.
The rules aren’t centered around PVP. What you’re talking about is an old argument: D&D Fighters don’t duel D&D wizards for a reason.

(Assuming the characters are at least fifth level. 2nd level arcane spells are annoying at best, they’re a far cry from lethal.)
 

Muir

Fighter
D&D fighters actually have it easier than an Alliance fighter would in that situation. They get saving throws.
 

Auric

Administrator
Alliance General Manager
Alliance Logistics
It was more an example, showing how much a fighter relies on magic items right now and how weak they are without them.

Let's use a Goblin Apprentice Caster, ACE 3
4x Disarm
3x Pin
2x Bind
1x Shun

This monster only has 10 body, but at a distance, if the NPC can combo a spell above against a fighter without defensive items they will be temporarily out of the fight. Swinging for a lot of damage won't help much if your weapon is on the ground, you need to run away to get out of line of sight, or are stuck in place arms bound. With a magic item change even as a high level character this npc provides the same difficulty it does for me as it would for a low level player, and it doesn't need 400+ body to do it.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
Fighters seems like a straw person argument, yes Fighters are poorly balanced there are literally dozens of threads about how bad they are at everything but static damage in 1.3. Lets talk about a 45th level scholars effect on game balance or even worse a small team of level 45 characters of varying balanced classes.

If you have a problem with characters swinging for 80 effective damage and you don't have a problem with a scholar throwing 80 complete takeouts in the form of Sleep, Confine, and Prison then I don't understand your game design paradigm. The problem is uncapped build especially because people feel entitled to that build and to do with it what they please. If the game wouldn't be as fun for you as a level 2 character than as a level 40 character than there is a problem with the game system. The system should be MOST engaging at low levels because those are the people you need to hook. If the play experience is bad at low levels it needs to be fixed.
 
Top