Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Before the Tens of Thousands.

Wolf of Rathglen
Duffy Swiftshadow
So again, what you're saying is there should be no progression system? There should be no Tier differences, there should just be single homogenized point where everything is equal because if not the differences discourage play?

I've been saying rather explicitly the progression system is building your attack roll, your resistances, your base damage, your defense rating, with the multitude of ways the game provides for us to do that.

Having the T3 armor keyword activated gives you +50 Base Defense over T2 (+100 Base Defense over T1) and increases in Hit Points, Power, and other specific areas fitting the theme of your armor. That IS your progression (with access to advanced training including defense bonuses) that gives you many advantages including receiving weakened attacks from a lower tier player based on how much weaker they are.

Tossing on an additional 40% penalty after their lacking keywords for a full attack was already penalized is absurd. You were just saying the same thing about spells! It applies to everything else too.

Applying a second keyword-training penalty out of nowhere AFTER applying the combat statistics penalty isn't from a progression system, the combat statistics penalty was from the progression system. Keyworded penalties regardless of any choice you can make for your character only serves to entrench the power of longtime subscribers with more xp over accounts with less xp. In a game of meaningful choices it should be possible to try to overcome the advantages granted by higher tier armor by making good choices with other aspects of the progression system to affect the attack roll, resistances, base damage, and defense rating of you and your opponent with the multitude of ways the game provides for us to do that.

It's outside the progression system and breaking multiple promises made by the developers for years.

Your never answered my question from above. I'd appreciate it so I'll restate:

Between a game that presents players with a challenge then a.) every day provides a multitude of meaningful choices in developing and refining training strategies and combat tactics to progressively overcome that challenge or b.) shuts the player down with an automatic 40% penalty no matter what choices the player makes until they have subbed to the game for over a year, which game would you choose?
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Wolf of Rathglen
I can do it in an even shorter post:

"Wearing armor" isn't character progression.

I don't want the clothes I wear (40% penalty no matter what choices you make) to functionally act as an automatic I win button that ignores ALL THE OTHER THINGS that combine together to form a robust and meaningful RPG character progression system; and makes my own self-buffing and healing abilities weaker as I "progress". That's stupid game design.

[Edit: Bob, Cole, or Lisa are not responsible for its genesis. I love you guys.]
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Flari-Merchant
I kind of agree with Lisa here. At top end, I only have 10 to what? 15 times more hps than a starting character?

Percentages of effects for character totals are the problems, IMO. Without percentages there would be no need for epro/epow. Yet without these percentages, you need to make sure that there is still some viability of effectiveness in T1 vs T3. You can do that with set numbers. A low level healer should have to use many more low level cure spells to heal a high level character, but they SHOULD still heal a high level character. <—for example.

What about stacks or effects like Hold Person? Well there are also skills that help you reduce these things and get over them more swiftly or deny them. You need to train these to be all you can be against low level combatants and spell casters.

The tier with the keyword system is enough of an innovation to be an interesting concept. Just get rid of basing things off of percentages. Let tier, matching keywords and other feats be the measure of how effective you are without epro/epow.

Unfortunately, this is probably much more work than is possible ATM.

Edit: We are considering the affectiveness of threading and that is good. Also consider the affect that ammunition is going to put on cantrips and orison use. It will still be a terrible waste of ammo for my low level healer to heal that high level player…
Duffy Swiftshadow
I guess the part that doesn't make sense to me is the whole implied 'overcoming' something better with 'less', that strongly implies a lack of progression. The idea stands to overcome something that was done optimally you must sink the same amount of whatever (in this case XP earned over time) into building a likewise optimal build, so in this example to negate the advantage of a higher tier you must reach that same tier.

I don't get what your trying to talk about here besides that you don't like Epow/Epro. If that's all there ultimately is to it then okay I can get that, I agree it's unwieldy even if the the principle behind it is acceptable.

But again it's not a huge surprise, the keyword system is baked right into the game from the start, it doesn't 'suddenly' start happening. It's always there and it's always playing a factor. You could argue that it's not an obvious and straightforward progression based on how and when keywords are added, sure I agree. When I explained it to new players in my PFU talks it was very confusing how the item +s and keywords were added/worked. But the same core 'problem' your outlining existed between T1 and T2 players, and a smaller gap exists between starting T2 and end of T2 players. The same pattern is repeating into T3. So my question is what are you getting at?

I can't discern what your question A is asking, can you clarify it?

B is a specific example that can be extrapolated to an abstract by comparing any two points on a progression curve. Therefore according to your argument, any difference based on XP spent is bad. So my question stands, are you saying any progression difference is a problem (because there will always be one if you have 'progression' in any form)?

Will some players hate a game where someone is ahead of them? Sure some will, but they probably don't play MMOs or tabletop much since most of them have a progression curve. So if progression is allowed how much time and difference is okay? Would it be okay if it was a matter of grinding XP for 500 hours instead of subbing for a year? Because there's a large population that would prefer the latter over the former because for them it's the same amount of real-time when all is said and done.

And again, you're ignoring all the stuff about threading, crafting time, incomplete game loops, etc… This example does not exist in a vacuum. Even thought I tend to agree with some of what your saying, I do think the double hit is confusing and should be simplified and maybe even lessened, I'm not agreeing that the principle is wrong.

Edit: Responding to the post that got in while I was typing.

But to wear that armor you need to train a lot of things to get to that point, and gear is part of the progression system of the game. The armor is the source of your defensive keywords while weapons are the source of your offensive, and Features your expendables. Weapons have the same Tier bonus outside of keywords too, are you saying that gear stats should be removed?
Flari-Merchant
I believe that both better gear and better training, combined, are a normal and expected gap between low and high levels. A higher Tier is a great place to add a good extra bonus to help demonstrate this. Players are used to and expect such things. Not every player likes time=exp vs grind=exp but that was known when the game was designed.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
One thing not being taken into account is that regardless of which form of xp is used, at what point can a character contribute in a meaningful way? For most games even someone who doesn't have the absolute best gear or isn't the highest level can still be useful in combat at a certain level.

Eve is a passive xp game and does it by making it relatively easy to make a decent character that is able to just grab a modest but useful ship and go. Active xp games that are worth their salt allow characters to make a difference in group combat or crafting even if they aren't at Max level or in top tier gear.

In PFO this epow and epro thing needs to be tweaked for that reason. In a 1v1 a T3 would and should always beat a tier 2 all other things being equal but it should not be as lopsided as it is now. Same with T2 v t1 as well. That way a T2 is still useful in groups even if there are T3 guys. Like I said before, higher armor should give a slight boost in protection but not so much that it makes lower tiered gear a complete joke by comparison.

A T1 guy is useless and will remain useless until they hit t2. Same with t3 vs T2 since there is little risk of losing t3 gear. In this game you HAVE to be both max level AND Max gear to have a chance at all and the xp over time PLUS active xp does not help matters.

Also, if epow vs epro ain't fixed, someone said they were afraid everyone would just wear t3 armor just for that. Well, I can almost guarantee that, cause why wouldn't you? Whether it's from math or intuition, why would you use t3 of anything else when you know that t3 armor will force someone to either take a huge hit to their attack power or if they use a t3 weapon they will be much easier to damage. t3 armor will basically be the new meta and with no good enough reason not to, people are gonna power game this to kingdom come.

You fix this epow vs epro thing then suddenly threading becomes more balanced, doesn't automatically lead to a t3 armor meta, and ultimately makes more variety in builds viable.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Wolf of Rathglen
@Bringslite: Minor Cure- heals 50 + heals 10 per keyword power, 1 round (6 second) cooldown.

T1: 60/70/80 (target's HP 600-900? ~8-10% for equally progressed targets but definitely not hax on higher level targets)
T2: 90/100/110/120 (target's HP 1200-1800? Gaining quantitatively but proportionately a little less powerful on equally progressed than when first trained; GREAT on less progressed characters with fewer HP; commonly expected from Level 1 abilities in computer games and just like in Pathfinder IP)
T3: 150/165/180/195 (same as T2)

As mentioned earlier, total attack is divided by total defense and if that result is a decimal like .92 for a close to full strike or .60 from a severely underpowered attacker (like a tier lower) the stacks and durations that came with the attack get an 8% or 40% penalty just like the damage.

That can apply to the effectiveness of beneficial spells and heals too by rolling a total attack for that skill compared in the same manner to a fixed Friendly Defense threshold for beneficial effects; such as 70/140/200 depending on how many major keywords the target's armor has. That requires the caster to be developing for real as a character gaining attack bonus and BAB -with all the achievements, increased attributes, and xp invested involved with that- to get the full benefits and heals of his skills when compared to the 70/140/200 threshold. Potions, tokens, etc. can be affixed with the number appropriate for their tier so a T2-wearing character using a T1 healing token only gets 70/140 the healing from it.

Attacks and beneficial effects from a character not developed enough compared to the target get proportionately penalized for not being high enough like we want, AND our own character development prevents our own beneficial skills and heals from quantitatively losing power as the character develops. All without Epow.

@Duffy: Armor is not the singular aspect of the progression system so what armor you're wearing should not dictate the sole measure of how successful one character can be vs. another. Armor provides SOME amount of the combat aspects, then many other sources add even more influences into the giant pile of strengths and weaknesses that is the full measure of character progression.

Game a.) Okay, I'm in T2 armor and now I'm going to fight this guy in T3 armor. That gives him many advantages due to his higher progression in armor. Have I been developing my attack bonus more than he invested in defense bonus? Have I developed enough attribute to use a skill to buff my HP closer to his? Have I developed any skills with +Precise to help me overcome his advantage in defense rating, or DoTs I can stack on long enough to deplete his HP if he's been neglecting Recovery? Have I developed my feature feat to apply enough Afflicted lowering his Reflex defense enough that my Empowered-buffed Reflex attacks can match his debuffed defenses? If I do this right win or lose I can make a go of this.

Game b.) Okay, I'm in T2 armor and now I'm going to fight this guy in T3 armor. 40% penalty to everything and nothing I do mat- oh I'm dead.

Which title do Tens of Thousands of gamers decide to play?

Just because a character is more developed in one of the many aspects of character progression doesn't mean they deserve to win every… single… encounter… with characters less developed in that one slice of the progression cake (except very specific corner cases). I went through just a small portion for brevity of all the other aspects of a challenger's own character progression he could use to overcome the advantages granted by that singular aspect of progression called armor.

Turn off Epow, put me in all T2 in front of someone in all T3 who has studied the combat system and made progression choices that have it work to their advantage in every possible way for their build, I probably won't overcome very often their good choices + the advantages of being a tier higher than me.

Turn off Epow, put me in all T2 in front of a series of haphazard T3 schmucks and I will smash them (I know this because before Epow I dueled T2 wearing T1 and won). I'll have to pay attention to timing my buffs and debuffs well with my major damage plays and switch to using my defensive character progression for a time while my offensive character progression has cooldowns etc. but betting is definitely even money.

His armor is not the sole reflection of character progression. It should not impose an automatic irrevocable 40% penalty in addition to the combat statistics armor already provides and be the sole meaningful factor in combat.

(And neither should having a T3 weapon vs. T2 armor if the defender has progressed their character enough in the other aspects of increasing their defense and/or healing and debuffing enemy attack rolls to overcome the attacker's higher base damage from that lone aspect of his character progression).
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
You are a Troll
So is this about the fact that you just want to be better than others with your mispent xp then? Doesn't seem like a good reason to change solid game mechanics. Sounds rather selfish to me.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Alright, that was a lot clearer, thanks.

So yea, accessing T3 armor is not the end all be all for the very reason you pointed out: A lot of other factors go into the math. If your assuming non-comparable builds (aka non similar optimal builds) than it is plausible for a well designed T2 to beat a sloppy T3, it's just a matter of a lot of math. It's not free or automatic just by virtue of donning the particular piece of gear. And eventually they will max out and be the same regardless of how much more XP is spent on the character.

Is it maybe too strong a difference with a narrow window to beat sloppy with optimal? Plausible. But even if they dropped Epro/Epow your problem is still true: An optimal build reaching T3 will still be stronger than an optimal T2 build by virtue of the math and XP (thus time) spent. So what is removing it really solving? It fixes some sloppy build comparisons to be less lopsided? Okay I guess.

If anything what might really be the hidden problem is that the random nature of the weapon tier bonus isn't really comparable to the flat +# defense armor tier bonus which might makes things seem less fair than they should be when it comes to a steady progression.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't really care for the Epow/Epro system, but my issue here is that the logic of your argument seems to apply regardless of the Epow/Epro system existing. Thus I'm really confused about where your going with this.
Flari-Merchant
Wolf of Rathglen
@Bringslite: Minor Cure- heals 50 + heals 10 per keyword power, 1 round (6 second) cooldown.

T1: 60/70/80 (target's HP 600-900? ~8-10% for equally progressed targets but definitely not hax on higher level targets)
T2: 90/100/110/120 (target's HP 1200-1800? Gaining quantitatively but proportionately a little less powerful on equally progressed than when first trained; GREAT on less progressed characters with fewer HP; commonly expected from Level 1 abilities in computer games and just like in Pathfinder IP)
T3: 150/165/180/195 (same as T2)

As mentioned earlier, total attack is divided by total defense and if that result is a decimal like .92 for a close to full strike or .60 from a severely underpowered attacker (like a tier lower) the stacks and durations that came with the attack get an 8% or 40% penalty just like the damage.

That can apply to the effectiveness of beneficial spells and heals too by rolling a total attack for that skill compared in the same manner to a fixed Friendly Defense threshold for beneficial effects; such as 70/140/200 depending on how many major keywords the target's armor has. That requires the caster to be developing for real as a character gaining attack bonus and BAB -with all the achievements, increased attributes, and xp invested involved with that- to get the full benefits and heals of his skills when compared to the 70/140/200 threshold. Potions, tokens, etc. can be affixed with the number appropriate for their tier so a T2-wearing character using a T1 healing token only gets 70/140 the healing from it.

Attacks and beneficial effects from a character not developed enough compared to the target get proportionately penalized for not being high enough like we want, AND our own character development prevents our own beneficial skills and heals from quantitatively losing power as the character develops. All without Epow.

Maybe beneficials should not be based on attack rolls vs armor, but rather simple calculations with higher buff and duration results for more tier, more keywords and varied by the results of your roll.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post