Deadshade said:What is better for smithing? Strong arms and wide chest to wield this 10 kg hammer with accuracy or stick arms that can't even raise it high enough ? Who uses a 30 kg 2H hammer better , faster and hits with more devastating power ? A 3 m , 250 kg ogre or a 1m , 40 kg Gnome ?
The race has no bearing in these and many other skills ? Of course it has , at least in a Universe where different races have VERY different corporeal and intellectual abilities what we hope will be the case for Pantheon .
I hear what you're saying. Races have physical adaptations that lend them more towards certain classes. That's what the class/race roster is for. The positioning of those classes and races is a choice the dev's made. And from that point on, it's up to them to explain their choices through lore, culturally, magically or historically.
However it would go too far perhaps to have a level 1 warrior halfling and a level 1 warrior ogre and start of with a difference between them. Following your latest reply you'ld say, the ogre will be hitting harder from the start, purely because he's taller, heavier build then a halfling.
When you imagine "class training" and there is a warrior academy, the halfling and the ogre both graduate at level 1 from the same academy. So with that, they both would be trained to equal level. As in; they are trained to use the abilities with the equal performance/outcome. If you'ld put ogres in an advantage spot, it might be impossible for that halfling to "compete" or catch up with the ogre's advantage.
A side thought, perhaps a class requires more then 1 stat/skill. So that a warrior has 4 skills that influence the warrior's abilities. The initial situation would be that every 2 races, have a advantage in one skill (8 races that can be a warrior, so divide that somewhat reasonably, you'll end up with 2 races/skill). Now the halfling warrior has a warriorrelated skill that is better then the Ogre. And the Ogre has another skill that is better then the halfling etc. This might level the field a bit and get that physical /racial influence out of the way but still impactfull.
If races have such differences influencing the performance of the same class. It could be seen as poor design as few player might choose a race that does not have that extra edge from the start.
In a fantasy world, some things can be explained by adding a little magic to it. So a halfing being as strong as an ogre might just be such a thing. The real world shows us that it's not always the most bulky person that is the strongest.
Barin999 said:Deadshade said:What is better for smithing? Strong arms and wide chest to wield this 10 kg hammer with accuracy or stick arms that can't even raise it high enough ? Who uses a 30 kg 2H hammer better , faster and hits with more devastating power ? A 3 m , 250 kg ogre or a 1m , 40 kg Gnome ?
The race has no bearing in these and many other skills ? Of course it has , at least in a Universe where different races have VERY different corporeal and intellectual abilities what we hope will be the case for Pantheon .
I hear what you're saying. Races have physical adaptations that lend them more towards certain classes. That's what the class/race roster is for. The positioning of those classes and races is a choice the dev's made. And from that point on, it's up to them to explain their choices through lore, culturally, magically or historically.
However it would go too far perhaps to have a level 1 warrior halfling and a level 1 warrior ogre and start of with a difference between them. Following your latest reply you'ld say, the ogre will be hitting harder from the start, purely because he's taller, heavier build then a halfling.
When you imagine "class training" and there is a warrior academy, the halfling and the ogre both graduate at level 1 from the same academy. So with that, they both would be trained to equal level. As in; they are trained to use the abilities with the equal performance/outcome. If you'ld put ogres in an advantage spot, it might be impossible for that halfling to "compete" or catch up with the ogre's advantage.
A side thought, perhaps a class requires more then 1 stat/skill. So that a warrior has 4 skills that influence the warrior's abilities. The initial situation would be that every 2 races, have a advantage in one skill (8 races that can be a warrior, so divide that somewhat reasonably, you'll end up with 2 races/skill). Now the halfling warrior has a warriorrelated skill that is better then the Ogre. And the Ogre has another skill that is better then the halfling etc. This might level the field a bit and get that physical /racial influence out of the way but still impactfull.
If races have such differences influencing the performance of the same class. It could be seen as poor design as few player might choose a race that does not have that extra edge from the start.
In a fantasy world, some things can be explained by adding a little magic to it. So a halfing being as strong as an ogre might just be such a thing. The real world shows us that it's not always the most bulky person that is the strongest.
That is reality though. It is the trade off as everything is not, nor should it be equal.
If you balance out everything tit for tat, you end up with no real point in the slections of choices (ie defeating the entire concept of race/class selections in a RPG). You have to weight pros/cons of a given race and class. Not all will be equal, some will excel in things that others will not. A halfling warrior will never be equal to the strength and stamina of an ogre. The ogre will do more damage, and be able to apply conistent strentgh and endurance to their fight which is a very important aspect of such fighting. The Halfling will be at a disadvantage for such things and so will not, nor should they be the ideal choice in those situations. That said, a hlafling because of their racial traits may be a much better selection for other classes (agile and dexterous classes). That does not mean a halfling warrior can not have benefits in certain situations. For instance, in AD&D, there was small vs large bonuses to which a halfling due to their size and speed actually gained a bonus to combat when fighting giant size creatures.
The real world does show certain realities and while you are correct that mass alone does not equate to increased strength, when apples are compared to apples, the properly trained muscle mass will be stronger than that of the lower mass. That is, if an ogre and a halfling both specifically trained for strength and endurance, the ogre would always surpass the halfling in this core aspect. Technique can help, but when we are comparing things properly, it won't balance things out. The ogre will always be better suited in this case.
It is much like that of the difference between a man and a woman. Men have higher muscle density and bone density (key component for strentgth building) . Women can bulk all they like, train extensively in strength, but they lack the specific traits to be comparable to a man in this. Even very weak men (as it concerns the spectrum of men and muscle strength) have a better ratio of strength concerning this. The point is, there are differences, and so such have to be considered if we are looking at things logically.
Past that, I think trying to "balance" everything out is a mistake and one of the failures of many games today. Rather than accepting that some races/classes and even sexes will be better suited to a given focus and role (which is what most cRPGs did ), they try to make everything equal so no choice is a poor choice. The fact is, a poor choice is part of the game and some people actually cherish the fact that they picked a less than ideal race for a class. I think this gives the game meaning and purpose and requires people to think about their choices, why they are picking them. It gives the game depth.
Nephele said:How important are skills to your sense of character progression? Do you enjoy seeing skillup messages when you get better at a skill on your character? Do you actively go and try to work on improving those skills? How fast or slow should it be to train up a skill? Or, does it just seem like a chore and something that should come automatically as you level up?
I think skill systems are very important. I do enjoy seeing skill-up messages but that sensation is amplified considerably when their impact feels tangible, and the skill-up process doesn't feel gimmicky. I definitely prefer a slow-paced skill-up system. In FFXI, for example, you would see your skills raise in increments of .1, .2, or .3 -- I enjoyed that variance. The smaller increments made the leveling process feel more consistent, as well. Your character would have to grow into it's level rather than receiving a front loaded bonus.
Nephele said:If characters do have skills that must be trained or improved, should each character be able to improve all skills they have access to up to their maximum? Or should there be limits such that you have to pick and choose how you will focus? If there are limits, how easy or hard should it be for you to change focus?
I am not a fan of universal skill systems where every race/class has the same skills and relative caps. I'm going to cite FFXI again because I felt their skill system was the best I have seen. There were many combat skills in that game ... some were shared between all classes (evasion) ... some were shared between multiple classes (shield) ... and some were unique to a single class (ninjitsu). Beyond that, each class had a "grade" for each skill that was available to them. Thieves had an A+ in evasion while Paladins had a C. Rangers had an A+ in Archery while Warriors had a D. Each class also had a grade on weapon skills. The Dark Knight, similar to the Dire Lord in Pantheon, was an expert with edged weapons. The Warrior, similar to that of Pantheon, was proficient with more weapons than any other class.
I don't mean to go off the rails here, but to answer your question, specifically, I do think there should be limits such that you have to pick and choose how you will focus. But rather than allowing the player to assign points as they see fit, the skill system is actually integrated as a major balancing tool with class design. Paladins had a higher skill cap for sword and shield than a warrior did but they couldn't use bows or throwing weapons. Paladins could leverage both the healing skill and divine magic skill but they could never rival that of a white mage. No class could match the hand-to-hand skill of a monk. Because the skill system was directly tied to balance, and each class had their own strengths and weaknesses, the process of "skilling up" felt much more weighty.
I spent a little time theory crafting what that kind of skill system would look like in Pantheon. It's only half complete as it doesn't feature the various shared magic types (elemental/arcane/noxious/divine/enfeeblement/enhancement) or any of the class-specific skills such as singing for bards, summoning for summoners, marksmanship for rangers, etc. Again ... it's only theory crafting so there are plenty of assumptions and holes, but this is what that half-document ended up looking like: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EmrBTKu4IxTKBgDUCIGmSnQFkHV1OrazXzcjU8egSr4/edit#gid=0
There was another layer in FFXI that really elevated the idea of weapon skills. I'm not going to try and describe the full system here but weapon choice had a significant impact on how a character was played and what kind of role they played in a group. A warrior using a great axe brought a different kind of value to their group than a warrior using a great sword. Each weapon had their own abilities that could be unlocked, depending on the weapon skill grade that each class had for that weapon. Players could coordinate these abilities using the "skill chain" system.
It was a really robust system (probably too robust) that generally required groups to come up with a strategy that allowed for the best synergy in the group. If players were able to form a sound strategy based on the classes/skills/weapons available, and then execute it in-combat, the impact was monumental. Skill Chains and Magic Bursts weren't some sort of non-stop arcade button mashing simulator. They required resources that took a long time to build up. If players worked together as a team and coordinated their efforts and resources ... they could devastate an enemy. It was a nice change of pace considering it was usually the players that were getting destroyed.
Nephele said:When you think about character diversity, or the idea that characters of the same class should have something that sets them apart from each other and distinguishes them from each other, where do you see that diversity coming from and how important is it to you? Is it just a cosmetic thing where people should be able to have different looks if they want, or should characters of the same class be able to play differently and still be effective? Should the primary source of diversity be from gear, for example weapon selection, or should there be other factors that players should have to tune along with their gear, such as skills and/or abilities? Should progression within a class be set up so that you have to make some choices along the way, that determine what's available to you at maximum level, or should everyone get the same exact set of abilities and options as they level up without having to leave any behind?
I think diversity is extremely important. Each class should have their own strengths and weaknesses (tied into the skill system) compared to other classes but beyond that, there should also be ways to distinguish one wizard from the next. I think a lot of the diversity should come from gear, absolutely. The idea of situational gear really resonates with me; the weapons, armor and jewelry that we use should absolutely matter. Beyond that, though, I would also love to see an AA system. Here is a rough outline of what that would look like:
Every character can achieve a maximum of 1,000 AA points that they can unlock in any order, separated into 5 brackets. Something like this:
Race Specific = 200 AA Points
Archetype Specific (Tank/Healer/Melee/Caster -- only considers the "main role") = 200 AA Points
Archetype (Option#2 -- again, only considers the "main role") = 200 AA Points
Class Specific = 200 AA Points
Class (Option#2) = 200 AA Points
At any given point in time, players would only be able to "equip" 400 AA points maximum. These could be interchanged while out of combat and would function very similarly to the LAS. The first 400 points would basically serve as a "soft specialization" that players can custom-tailor to their playstyle. Any point after 400 would increase the versatility of that character. A veteran player with all 1,000 points unlocked would have more flexibility in how they specialize, but because of the cap of 400, they wouldn't be "over-powered" compared to a less advanced character. In other words ... a level 50 player with 400 AA points unlocked could have the same exact build as another level 50 player with 1,000 AA points unlocked. The first 400 serve as a vertical metric while the remaining 600 are considered to be horizontal. The amount of XP required to unlock each additional AA point would scale.
Ideally, it would take an extremely long time to unlock every AA point. This is also assuming a meaningful death penalty; this kind of deep/advanced progression would ensure that players aren't always "pushing forward" -- if they die too many times, they can lose access to an AA point. (AA XP would follow the same logic as traditional XP with de-leveling.) I think an AA system like this would extend the "journey" tremendously without creating massive gaps in power disparity. I also think it would open up a wide range of diversity based on race, class, and archetype. Race/Class would mostly be used for inner-class flavor while archetype could be used as more of a balancing agent that could still offer situational flavor for any given class.
dorotea said:Oddly enough given our ...imperfect unity of agreement in a few other recent threads I agree with Tanix completely here.
Don't feel bad Dorotea, I am very specific in what I want in a game, and even though I may dislike a lot of your ideas, it is nothing personal. In fact, I actually want you to have the game play you desire, I just know that if you get mostly what you want, I will likely not enjoy it myself. That is ok, but it is also a problem for people like me as the selections for what I seek are pretty much non-existent. That is, I have tried to "compromise" with the current iteration of games out there, and I can't do it. That is why I am very firm on what I want, because I know if they go too far, I might as well not bother even trying. As I have said in the past, been there, done that.
I may have to agree as well with something Tanix mentioned a few posts above so only related in a tangental way to the topic. I've said in other older threads about making decisions and living with the consequences. (It may have been posts related to my aversion to the concept of barber shops and name changes. Consequences initially start happening at the character creation screen and you should live with them or reroll.)
Choosing a Kobald Warrior because it has RP value is a legit decision but it should be an informed decision, I would even call it a pain point of sorts. That Kobald should not have the base STR stats that an Ogre does. A Kobald has its strong points and weak points as a race and STR is certainly not its strong point. I disagree with a Kobald and an Ogre starting out at the same base stat values, a Kobald should have maybe strong AGI, INT or WIS et al but a 3'9" creature should never be able to wield a 2H anything nearly as effectively (at starting base stat values) as an Ogre that is 10 ft tall and oozing steroids out its pores. Yes, each race should have its strong and weak points and no it should never be balanced. Furthermore, no each race should never have the option to be any class. Choose your pain points wisely when rolling your character and live eternally with your decision.
As for the OP: yes I love my skill level ups and I loved them well before Achievements were implemented in any game. Even if I am a mage and leveling up a dagger against a mob and getting absolutely nothing out of it but a ding- its all good. As a completionist though, I get concerned with any talk that maybe you have pool of points so you will not be able to level most things to a max value but maybe only 1/2 the things. I would rather not have to make the choice between getting max Swim Skill or getting max Sense Heading. Otherwise, I am sitting back and enjoying the responses in this thread.
((Don't feel bad Dorotea))
I do not - sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not - recently it has been more the latter in another week it may be the former. You have been polite and avoided any personal attacks and I hope so have I - development forums benefit more from exchanges of differing views than from uniformity of agreement. VR has seen well thought out and supported opinions on how much to focus on solo play in addition to the primary focus on group play - and, if so, how to do this. VR has seen well thought out and supported opinions on whether to have encounter locking in any form, whether to have any instancing at all (no one here wants more than just a little), whether to allow multiple tagging of the same mob, whether to use first-to-engage, most-damage-done or some other system, and the like. None of this may have affected their opinions or game development in any slightest way, but then again maybe it *has* or *will*.
Disagreement in a few posts as to the solo versus group point was followed by a Kilson question or two on the topic. Coincidence? Perhaps not.