2.0 - A power gamer's dream come true?

We've been mulling over what the biggest concerns seem to be regarding the new rules.

We can argue about which classes/races get impacted for the better or worse. Though I personally think these matters are clear, some owners and ARC members have come here and made claims contrary to the concerns many have brought up. Maybe all of that is debatable, but maybe it's not the central issue.

Maybe the biggest issue is what the proposed rules offer in terms of Power Gaming.

Magic items, for all their flaws, did offer a particular benefit. A 10th level character could load up with magic items (and I saw this often) and be able to feasibly roll with high level characters. Of course more often the opposite occurred, in which high level folks would simply hoard.

If we placed the proposed limits on magic items and kept classes and races for the most part as they are now then I think we would see a lot of improvement.

Static damage would still be an issue, but there are more moderate ways to fix that, and what we're about to see will be much worse.

Among moderate to high level characters, we'll have non-rogue classes walking around with 10+ dodges, casters with 30+ cloaks, martial classes with completely unpredictable damage output and likewise, casters with unmonitorable columns, all of which will be fairly impossible to scale for.

We've talk about turning new folks away because they've felt useless.

How much more useful do we think they'll feel now?
 

DiscOH

Artisan
As a low level character

The new consumables are about 2x more useful than the current ones. I expect to get an absolutely ridiculous power bump regardless of which class I end up playing as.

Examples of expendables:

Shatter scrolls
Healing is linear (I have a couple hundred CLW potions right now, they end up 2.5 times the impact)
Potency affects scrolls
Weapon traps 1hko anything (and don't require legerdemain, and only require a 3 count to set)
Potion Coatings make all potions more useful

You can also sell your daily abilities to people with weapon charges/spell store. So I expect to end up with more gold per game too.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
My largest concerns right now (other than Earth Casters not being treated fairly, obviously, from my million posts on that subject...) are that 2.0 seems to assume that all players will retain their current base design, and simply embrace the reduction in damage. That's not realistic. Perception drives change, and the majority perception (as indicated by the feedback data) is that the reduction in static weapon damage as currently proposed is generally received poorly.

If my polls are usable as a sample size, I suspect that people who are driven to play offensive-based characters will move to Celestial Scholars; this makes sense, really, because Wand damage does not increase in cost on a curve, so it's a better long-term investment. Even the investment-minded lowbie will probably consider whether it's worth it to find a Spirit Forge down the road, or just simply go low-level Scholar for the long-term advantage.

This is important because of Defense Bloat; my polls indicate that people won't just accept their reduction of static damage; they will abandon it for C Casters and bring in -significant quantities- of KO effects to the mix. We might have monsters with less Body totals, we will absolutely result in Monsters with increased Phases/Dodges/Resists/Cloaks/Immunities. Monster bloat is reactive to player resources; ARC has no control over that reaction, and will be utterly powerless to prevent it from occurring, regardless of what they advise.

This, of course, will be more apparent in chapters with higher level characters or higher volumes of characters (in Denver, as an example, the average character level may be lower than many of the older chapters, but it has a lot of players).

That's because these rules were designed with fixing a problem without taking into consideration why people play the classes they do, and that's a flaw. Sure, the Fighter changes would give a 2H fighter more advantages versus a shield, but now that shield character goes C Caster. Is this advantageous for the game as a whole? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
I don't really buy any of that, for a couple reasons.

First, the lowest level of KO effects increases in these rules. Yes, there are pseudo-KO effects below level 6, but Web is gone, Pin is now a higher level than it used to be (as part of Bind), and like always, Shatter and Disarm don't work on roughly 1/2 the monsters (or more).

Second, with Expanded Enchantment being gone, you have lost a LOT of the KO effects that were floating around most games. Sure, consumables can replace those, but they are one-shots, require someone who actually makes scrolls (a rare skill on the east coast, I can say for sure... can't speak for central or west), and can only be used by individuals who have at least level 2 celestial (at least if they want to cast KO effects).

Third, spells aren't infinite. If the game becomes massively top heavy with casters, you don't need to add phases and dodges and resists to NPCs, you just need to add a couple extra lives. And, honestly, across a 24 hour period, you may not need to even add that many. Having to spend one spell per monster (or more than one if not using full KOs), will run through resources at a shocking rate. Weapons users mitigate resource usage (except for those darn archers that literally throw money). The average player level in HQ is only a little over 20. I've seen reports that suggest that few games are higher and most are about the same or lower. Even with a completely maxed out pyramid, that is only 32 full KO spells per day (assuming all 6+ spells are devoted to full KOs). In my experience, I fight well over 32 enemies per day (probably 2-3x that number), especially if I go on a module.

-MS

Edit: Also, since the new rules allow memorizing up, I expect that most casters will be trying to memorize more Spell Shields per day than they used to (since it is pretty much the most popular spell in the game). That will use up precious slots that could be holding KO spells.
 

Ruki

Scholar
I don't really buy any of that, for a couple reasons.

First, the lowest level of KO effects increases in these rules. Yes, there are pseudo-KO effects below level 6, but Web is gone, Pin is now a higher level than it used to be (as part of Bind), and like always, Shatter and Disarm don't work on roughly 1/2 the monsters (or more).

Second, with Expanded Enchantment being gone, you have lost a LOT of the KO effects that were floating around most games. Sure, consumables can replace those, but they are one-shots, require someone who actually makes scrolls (a rare skill on the east coast, I can say for sure... can't speak for central or west), and can only be used by individuals who have at least level 2 celestial (at least if they want to cast KO effects).

Third, spells aren't infinite. If the game becomes massively top heavy with casters, you don't need to add phases and dodges and resists to NPCs, you just need to add a couple extra lives. And, honestly, across a 24 hour period, you may not need to even add that many. Having to spend one spell per monster (or more than one if not using full KOs), will run through resources at a shocking rate. Weapons users mitigate resource usage (except for those darn archers that literally throw money). The average player level in HQ is only a little over 20. I've seen reports that suggest that few games are higher and most are about the same or lower. Even with a completely maxed out pyramid, that is only 32 full KO spells per day (assuming all 6+ spells are devoted to full KOs). In my experience, I fight well over 32 enemies per day (probably 2-3x that number), especially if I go on a module.

-MS

Edit: Also, since the new rules allow memorizing up, I expect that most casters will be trying to memorize more Spell Shields per day than they used to (since it is pretty much the most popular spell in the game). That will use up precious slots that could be holding KO spells.
Very good points!

And this doesn't even bring up how the monster data-base will be changing. We have no idea how they will end up being.
 
I also think a lot of the complaints I have seen ignore one of the more interesting facets of our game. While some monsters do have packet-based KO effects, by design, the main way that monsters deliver status effects, in particular KO effects, tends to be through carrier attacks. Sure, any NPC can be a full caster, but the way our game is designed, full casters should be used sparingly as NPCs because they are extremely overpowered (they are a daily resource character being used in a single encounter) and that is true both in 1.3 and in 2.0.

Taking full casters out of the equation, it just comes down to how many monsters use packet based KOs. Using the database as a basis (it is understood that every chapter makes some of its own monsters, but the database is still good for advisory use at a minimum), thrown KO effects are uncommon. For example, looking at undead (a popular type of monster), the majority of undead are differentiated by carrier effects and immunities / resistances. Packet effects are primarily non-KO necromancy and, in at least one case, elemental ice damage (silly mariners). Only a very small handful, mostly very high level, throw full KOs.

The same pattern emerges across most of the monster types. Elemental damage packets are common. Carrier effects are common. Packet binding is mildly common, but it is important to note that binding, even when it is a "full" KO, runs out if the caster is incapacitated, mitigating the effect. Packet necromancy is also mildly common, but usually not Drain. Poison effects are the most common full KO effects, but racial resist for poison is relatively common, and poison shield is lower level than spell shield.

In short, having good armor (fighter) and a good blocking tool (off-hand weapon, shield, etc.), and having good health to absorb elemental / necromantic damage, mitigates the majority of threats in any given battle much better than Dodges or Cloaks do.

-MS
 

A.mungo

Artisan
Marshal
Very good points!

And this doesn't even bring up how the monster data-base will be changing. We have no idea how they will end up being.

The monster database will as always be a guideline and an easy sheet for teams to use at this point, any chapter may as always create custom creatures for their own use. This is not something that has come up as a owner vote to change, or that has been changed with the implementation plan of 2.0.

We are doing our best to create a decent spread of monsters with a unique feel for 2.0, but ultimately the rules only truly effect PVP and resource generation. Scaling and local resources will determine effectiveness of any given rules set we choose to utilize, so with that in mind, we will have a great spread of monsters available for plot teams to use, but it shouldn't be considered a factor of how effective the rule set in general will be.
 

tieran

Duke
Gettysburg Staff
Marshal
It’s weird to hear you say that @Avaran.

Just yesterday, I swore I heard you say that the new monster database was a $hit hole and we shouldn’t be letting people who use it into the game.
 

Melimir

Newbie
Asheville Staff
I do think that on this forum (2.0 discussion) we host a very vocal very high level minoriry who do not necessarily represent an accurate cross section of alliance as a whole. Most of the builds or complaints shown here do not effect or are not relevant for a great deal or players, and even some chapters in their entirety.
So should we dictate the direction for the changes focused on the elites or should the focus be on the low level experience?
 

Tantarus

Squire
I do think that on this forum (2.0 discussion) we host a very vocal very high level minoriry who do not necessarily represent an accurate cross section of alliance as a whole. Most of the builds or complaints shown here do not effect or are not relevant for a great deal or players, and even some chapters in their entirety.
So should we dictate the direction for the changes focused on the elites or should the focus be on the low level experience?
So being invested in the game is a bad thing now? They are free to read, interact, and post too.

And I am willing to bet most of them will become very vocal when they are blindsided by prof/bs and other melee nerfs.
 

Melimir

Newbie
Asheville Staff
So being invested in the game is a bad thing now? They are free to read, interact, and post too.

And I am willing to bet most of them will become very vocal when they are blindsided by prof/bs and other melee nerfs.
Not a bad thing it all, at this wasn't intended to be personal, just as observation. 50 cloak builds, swinging 30s, or builds purposely for 10+ dodges arn't really relatable for a lot of us.

And some really like the idea of the prof progression, if it brings down the overall damage and narrows the damage range between players.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I do think that on this forum (2.0 discussion) we host a very vocal very high level minoriry who do not necessarily represent an accurate cross section of alliance as a whole. Most of the builds or complaints shown here do not effect or are not relevant for a great deal or players, and even some chapters in their entirety.
So should we dictate the direction for the changes focused on the elites or should the focus be on the low level experience?

Speaking from the perspective of my own chapter at least, the majority of our active, regular posters here on these v2 forums are below our chapter’s Average Player Level.

The perspectives of all player level ranges are critical, because while yes, we want to have a game that is welcoming and empowering for lower level players, those players will eventually become high level players, and we need to ensure that the system experience is functional for them at that end of the spectrum as well.
 
Last edited:

Muir

Fighter
Yeah, I am definitely well below the curve for my chapter as well. My 'biggest' character tops out at 201 build.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
I do think that on this forum (2.0 discussion) we host a very vocal very high level minoriry who do not necessarily represent an accurate cross section of alliance as a whole. Most of the builds or complaints shown here do not effect or are not relevant for a great deal or players, and even some chapters in their entirety.
So should we dictate the direction for the changes focused on the elites or should the focus be on the low level experience?
My character is level 17. Does that put me in the "high level elite"? Almost all of the players from Denver strongly dislike the new rules change and are equal to or lower level than my character. What data do you have that suggests forum feedback is a "minority"? Are you sure its not just your own personal biases leaking out?

Not a bad thing it all, at this wasn't intended to be personal, just as observation. 50 cloak builds, swinging 30s, or builds purposely for 10+ dodges arn't really relatable for a lot of us.

And some really like the idea of the prof progression, if it brings down the overall damage and narrows the damage range between players.
Prof progression without some kind of caster limiting doesn't make the gap between high level and low level players smaller, it just makes the gap between melee attackers and spell casters bigger. Our chapter, full of lower level players is almost universally against prof and backstab scaling as it is currently suggested.

Why is it acceptable for casters to have great scaling and rouges, fighters, and scouts to have none?
 

Mulgrum

Newbie
Why is it acceptable for casters to have great scaling and rouges, fighters, and scouts to have none?
Because "You can swing all day" might be part of that answer, and it's absolutely unrealistic. It's not only that you have to pay ever increasing amounts of xp to get more damage, it's that you get nothing else for it. The same 105 xp that just gets a fighter swinging sixes, gets a caster four columns and a formal level. 36 spells 35 wand charges for 3 and a cloak. Napkin math suggests you'd have to hit 77 times to match their damage output, a single level three spells that lands drops you to hitting like you're a caster with a dagger and you have zero options to deal with this caster if it decides to look at you funny.
 

Tantarus

Squire
Because "You can swing all day" might be part of that answer, and it's absolutely unrealistic.
25 years of gameplay argues differently.

The same 105 xp that just gets a fighter swinging sixes, gets a caster four columns and a formal level. 36 spells 35 wand charges for 3 and a cloak. Napkin math suggests you'd have to hit 77 times to match their damage output, a single level three spells that lands drops you to hitting like you're a caster with a dagger and you have zero options to deal with this caster if it decides to look at you funny.
Totally discounts KO effects casters get, the advantage of range, team dynamics, etc. Talk about unrealistic.
 
Top