A Different way to deploy 'Paragons'

After reading the below what is your current thought on this idea?

  • Fully Against

    Votes: 29 60.4%
  • Partially Against - Would probably not use

    Votes: 5 10.4%
  • Partially in Favor - Might use, or know people you think would enjoy this

    Votes: 8 16.7%
  • Fully in Favor

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Don't Really Care, I just Hate Paragons in general so method doesn't apply/Matter to me

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I like/Love Paragons, but I very much dislike this method of delivery.

    Votes: 5 10.4%

  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .

mythic

Knight
Owner
Calgary Staff
Just a quick note as well. When you lose the XP, you would also lose associated Body. A fighter, for instance, would drop 10-20 body depending on the XP cost.

@mikestrauss for #3, yes, your level would decrease.
 

Lurin

Duke
JP,

You are correct. Other than for an existing character you could burn yourself way down (if you wanted) to trade in all the built up XP and start with multiple Paragon stats and still be better off than a new character. Unless you are concerned about total over all power between toons. In which case, you are right, that would be a potential draw back for some.

The skewing toons towards a lower Build total, while still allowing for advancement is a key goal of this proposal and is by design. This lowers all sorts of bloat without punishing long term players. (as you can still use the existing non-paragon options if you find them better). In a perfect world I'd love to see players choosing either path. Paragons being more flexible and specialized, as well as the old warhorse that just keeps getting better at the straight up battle without getting fancy about it.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Please keep this discussion on track
Ok. Paragons, and their format, are terrible (IMHO).

However, rather than just leaving my opinion as a singular, dismissive sentence, I opted to present a better format, because I felt that was more constructive.
 

Ruki

Scholar
Sorry @Lurin !

Do you feel that weapon selection choices, utility tools like alchemy or legerdemain, and the ability to potentially dabble in spell trees does not currently provide adequate options for character differentiation?

Do you feel that the current Paragon setups does so meaningfully?

How do you feel about the potential for Paragon multi-classing that this thread's proposal would allow for?
1. It's some differentiation, but not enough. Like right now? I'm a rogue who dabbles in magic and alchemy. but with a paragon? I'm a rogue who can harness my magic and use it to empower my strikes or cast spells through my blade.
2. Personally? I do. A ravager (for example) who is able to buff himself (by debuffing others) is a lot more flavorful than a fighter who can cast spells to buff himself.
3. If someone is willing to spend the XP? Go hard. It'd make for even more interesting builds that I would love to see. It's more options!

For me, paragons represent everything I love about games...options and flavor.
 

Avaran

Baron
Please keep this discussion on track (@Draven and @Ruki you are drifting a bit off point)and focus on the deployment design, go ahead and assume there will be something desire able for the character looking at taking a paragon, even if it's not you (yet?)



1.) Correct that basic overall idea is paragons as they are now, tweak in consideration of the new acquisition. This does not mean paragon paths will not be adjusted over all, but to give a starting point.
2.) This is the set of skills you must have on your card, when you decided to take the paragon path. There would be no 'maintenance' skills required after that point.
3.) For this discussion lets assume it's an In between game thing that requires no teacher cards and is readily available to all comers who qualify
4.) The Paths would have the existing X Steps (currently 5) structure. You would not be able to 'double train' any step. There would be no hypothetical limit to paths other than the ever increasing cost for additional paths

Comment response - With the new XP system and lack of XP-> Build point confusion, this actually becomes very easy to modify.



1. Each Path will have pre-reqs similar in design to the existing (Given that paragon paths are still in design so to speak), but yes.
2. You would have to (get to?) drop skills to match your new XP total. These would be any skills of your choice as long as the result is legal.
3. Yes for all intents you are your new XP level (APL etc.) This would include for additional build growth going forwards. XP gain would be based on the character at the beginning of the event, NOT the post Paragon revision.
4. Yes, but it would be less efficient to wait obviously
5. At the moment of the mass purchase
6. Sure
7. Same as #5
Based on these answers, I voted Fully Against - though I do REALLY like the concept of "gives players a chance to mini-forge if they want" idea. But losing XP/Levels in the process makes it a solid "against" for me.

Not to mention, that's a fairly complicated character database you're going to have to build for all of this. I already have serious fears about how the required new Character DB is going to work, if it even does. Hope you have a genuine whiz/pro working on it.
 
Last edited:

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
I really like the creativity behind this proposal, and appreciate how this tries to solve one of the biggest long term problems with Alliance (no build cap and no lobg term spend possibilities) but I'm worried that this hoses long time players ( of which I'm not one).

New characters gain build 10-20 times faster than established characters and this system really gives a big advantage to newer and mid range characters.

In theory a long established character could buy 3-4 paragon paths and simulate going to low levels for build gain, but I worry that this isn't an appealing option to most people.

For these reasons I voted fully against.
 

Saephis

Squire
Without an actually fully fleshed out, balanced, and thorough Paragon-set proposal, its practically impossible for me to weigh in on this from a "Would you like Paragons if..." standpoint.

I don't care for a further complication of experience accrual, as the Experience -> Build (And Experience to ... Experience? in 2.0) is already a problem cited by practically ever new player I've spoken to.
 

Muir

Fighter
I'm wholly against it as presented. Lowering the APL is meaningless if what would previously have been the high-level crowd above it is simply 'technically' at lower level but with skills and abilities those legitimately of that level cannot possess. It makes APL as a scaling tool even more useless than it currently is.
 

Cipher

Newbie
I don't get it. You want someone buying paragon and getting stronger abilities to count as a lower level? Would that mean that level will stop representing how strong overall your character is? Can you drop back to single digit level with that and mop the floors with any opposition of your APL? If so - why would we need that?
 

MaxIrons

Squire
Oregon Staff
Marshal
While I read Cipher's tone as aggressive, there is a very valid point there.
 

Lurin

Duke
I don't get it. You want someone buying paragon and getting stronger abilities to count as a lower level? Would that mean that level will stop representing how strong overall your character is? Can you drop back to single digit level with that and mop the floors with any opposition of your APL? If so - why would we need that?
Right now APL is a very basic count of rough power but it's not really very telling. I had a rabbit artisan that used to spike APLs by being the level 28 guy on that level 5 group despite having no real combat skills, so I'm generally not a fan of blind APL based combat. APL is currently only marginally useful determining how powerful a character is and plot members already have to account for that.

I also feel this might overestimate the amount of power most paragon roles actually offer. However if it's an issue adding X number to APL based on Paragon steps would cover this concern.

That said a 30 build character with a sufficient book of scrolls or Alchemy can also wipe the floor (And in our existing systems a very small number of appropriate MIs) so while it is a valid concern I do not see this as a unique issue with this method of delivering paragons that would be a new burden so to speak.
 

MondayMcGee

Scholar
San Francisco Staff
Doesn't it also just push the scaling problem back a few years? At a certain point, players will have all the Paragon levels they want, and go back to just buying skills normally again. So then we've got the same high-level characters that caused the problem to begin with, but now they've also got a bunch of fancy tricks from their Paragon paths?
 

Lurin

Duke
Doesn't it also just push the scaling problem back a few years? At a certain point, players will have all the Paragon levels they want, and go back to just buying skills normally again. So then we've got the same high-level characters that caused the problem to begin with, but now they've also got a bunch of fancy tricks from their Paragon paths?
Absolutely, but it pushes it back more than spending 50 build would for the same full path.

This concept is only for how the paragons paths are deployed, if they happen, so we should consider this only in comparison to paragons being rolled out in the currently noted fashion of 10 xp a step.
 

Saephis

Squire
No scaling model is perfect in "take X general statistic", but the APL model is generally *fairly* reliable, when you assume the plot team takes into account things like "That guy's an Artisan and has no combat skills".

Artificially reducing a character's level by literal reduction of build through buy-in to additional abilities just seems like a method to take away even an imperfect (but semi-reliable) encounter-statting method from plot teams, in addition to my previously stated misgivings regarding the complexity of XP -> Build.
 

MondayMcGee

Scholar
San Francisco Staff
In that case, given the choice between this option (a short-term solution that will make the problem worse in the long run) vs. the current option of 10xp per step that is at least subject to normal reduction in build accrual, I'd have to go for the latter.
 

Cipher

Newbie
To further clarify - would a person, who bought a few paragons and is keeping his level artificially low, gain xp at the same speed as another one of the exact same level but no paragons?
 

Cipher

Newbie
Any potential advantageousness of this seems to elude me. Atm I only see a convoluted scheme to bypass character growth rate reduction with leveling. If anyone have figured out the point of this exercise - could you please lay it out in twenty words or less?
 

Lurin

Duke
Any potential advantageousness of this seems to elude me. Atm I only see a convoluted scheme to bypass character growth rate reduction with leveling. If anyone have figured out the point of this exercise - could you please lay it out in twenty words or less?
While it's clear you don't agree with the idea, and I appreciate the feedback so far, please re-read the original post for the thinking behind this. If it helps though here you go.

'Build Bloat is a problem, reducing build voluntarily reduces this problem while adding uniqueness to the characters doing so."

Your previous question about gain of XP speed was answered (twice) already in this discussion which makes me worried you might not be looking at all the data before asking for additional clarifications.

As an aside I AM taking the numbers of responses to the vote very seriously, and I'm happy to answer questions. But if your response is "I don't think this has any value" please simply vote accordingly as that doesn't help my understanding at all, beyond a basic popularity premise.

I think it would be interesting to do the math under both considerations to see what the 'setback' is between someone that drops 100xp 5 times at 150 down to 50, and someone who continues to level and where the Build stands 10, 20, 40 weekends after both players have the full set of a paragon path.
 
Last edited:

Saephis

Squire
@Lurin , can you speak to the concerns regarding this complicating Experience/Build expenditure/gain or just delaying the perceived Experience/Build 'bloat' issue that would be found in this proposed route?

I don't feel that this is without merit of discussion, I just feel that these two issues are large enough to either dismiss or expound further on it.

I do feel that there needs to be something at high level play, as otherwise there's the potential for ridiculous cards stomping over games, however whether that's a product of our currently-problematic magic item system, players understanding responsibility of play for all walks of character, or simply "you have too much stuff on your character card" is certainly up for debate. While this may address one or two pieces of that, I'm curious your thoughts on the pair of problems presented.
 
Top