Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

[Kayle Walker]

I understand time zones can be difficult. Doesn't hurt to reach out as see if someone can make time if you've got something in mind. Collaboration is key!

With all due respect, it is muuuuuch, much harder than this reads in practice. Stability in RP opportunities is quite frankly a privilege one can only truly feel when you're in the absence of it. :/

Starting over from scratch with someone? It can only go so far. Prior progress with past partners matter - its IMO tiring and disrespectful for the effort you've built to keep rehashing the same song-and-dance with entirely new people without pressing forward with your prior RPs, and that's impossible to do when your RP opportunities are basically limited to random meetups.

This lack of RP, and again, paired with the slog of 1-30 here makes the experience feel needlessly stretched out for players on the fringes. Probably talking to deaf ears at this point, but that's my two cents on it.

P.S. Maybe level cap doesn't have to be changed, but a change in rate of level progression would be appreciated.

[JIŘÍ]

Also quite thing what i do not understand is, if you do not like play character with 15 lvl-s above or more, you can always turn off xp gained, what you have options at now on server. But forcing other people to play lets say with this limit, when most of them do not like this, its not ok at all, especiality they have option at now, same as players who do not like have h. lvls. its like hm.. "i do not like 30 lvl, like 15 lvl! so rest also need to!" xD

Sorry for grammar i hope its understable what i write?

Yeah sure, you solo play on level 15 and than have no part in the outgoing stuff at all because half or all in party are level 30. Kind of not working

Then simple you do not joing parts when you know you cannot handle them. Simple.

So yes you propose that people should then avoid events and plots and solo. Gotcha.

We all see how well is it turning out in Tot.

[EasternCheesE]

Also quite thing what i do not understand is, if you do not like play character with 15 lvl-s above or more, you can always turn off xp gained, what you have options at now on server. But forcing other people to play lets say with this limit, when most of them do not like this, its not ok at all, especiality they have option at now, same as players who do not like have h. lvls. its like hm.. "i do not like 30 lvl, like 15 lvl! so rest also need to!" xD

Sorry for grammar i hope its understable what i write?

It's not a matter of people not liking high level but balance issues for both DM and Devs. If a handful of people stop at level 15 we will still have issues in balancing mobs and events

The unfortunate part is that you will still have balance issues at 20, as well as 15, and 12. With much of the server first developed under 20, then moved and curated for 30, you'll have even more work to consider when dialing it down. There's a lot of things that just don't scale well in either tipping direction. I'm not a proponent for 30, but there's too much emphasis on balancing sheets that will never satisfy rather than providing value for each of those elements beyond clicking on a red target. The missed mark is still on additional content that isn't just dungeon running.

I may be a bit out-of-date with my comment, but still. I double that given i remember being one-shotted by lvl 12 dwarf in Xvarts while being lvl 16 rogue.
The only way to remove sheet/gear disparity is removing levels and gear and give everyone everything same, but it won't be DnD.
Going to level 15 would make things simpler for sure, but the fundamental issue of dnd 3.5e translated into real-time engine will persist, just at smaller level. There will still be overtuned saves on PCs, op multiclass combos and so on. I myself am rather willing to work with players for experimenting with different mob stats till we find some other paradigm (current one is bloated hp-lowish AC/mediocre dmg) of PvE content.
Though, i have totally no opposition on reducing APR to 4 or any other lower number.

[JIŘÍ]

I however didn't vote and my vote would go for 1. Though I would prefer cap at 20.

And for a single reason.

With lower numbers die roll matters. When npc scores crit, it can butcher you even if fully buffed.

With lower levels saves aren't Inflated either.

After time spent on raveloft server where people scatrch out every single poi t form potions or spells and still your life in dungeon hangs on your skill and party I can not ever desire otherwise.

Lower level spread also makes everyone meaningful. Lvl 20 cna easily hire lvls 15 for bodyguards or lvl 15 cna easily employ people around level 10. Because their attacks, numbers and alike will matter.

If level 30 employs lvl 20 character all you in fact are doing is babysitting that lower lvl with it not contributing anything pve or pvp wise.

Edit: it of course demands serious cut into magical items. No abilities, hps, feats on items. If this is not done nothing will change.

[Steve]

Thanks to Rhifox for putting these options up for consideration to the community.

My own thoughts are: are these the only options?

What about a few simple/complex changes? Like, knocking back the magic to more low-magic environment (take EB down to +2 max, or just go with AB and extra dmg on items)? What about mob replacements where PCs aren’t slaying dragons daily—or greater sentient beings—and more Elementals and dumb Undead, some “greater” golems or maybe higher mass of lower quality mobs? What about making some restrictions on multicasting, so things like Red Wizard + Shadow Adept builds are not possible?

Nonetheless, someone else is going to decide, and more so, someone else is going to do the work…and I’ll personally either like it, “live with it,” or choose not to.

I vote for whatever makes role-playing more fun, more important to enact on BGTSCC, than mechanics gaming.

[Truthiness]

This late in the history of the server, I have no interest in 1 or 2. If it was a new server, it would have been a different matter, but right now, I have absolutely no interest in 1 or 2.

I have to agree with Ghost on this one. And since option 3 drastically effects martial characters, while having minimal impact on casters (besides buffing them), I'd have to go with option 4.

As far as the removing skill/save stacking, that would be a massive change to the server, as most systems/DCs/etc would need to be designed with it in mind, which it's currently not (40+ DC casters/etc). The stealth issue would need to be dealt with as well.

[Rhifox]

On 3, it's important to note that this should be considered under the future system, not the current one. It does not hurt martials to cap APR... in fact, it's the other way around. If we move into a PvE environment where you're facing packs of mobs, each of those mobs with 8+ APR, what you end up facing is a vastly higher chance of autohitting level 20s that ignore your AC values. That hurts the player. Also, if you're able to do stupid huge amounts of damage in a single turn because of higher APR, that requires mobs to have higher HP, which then hurts less optimized low damage builds.

Plus, the amount of people using attack-lowering abilities (like NH, Athkatla, Sembian, etc) implies that people don't really value those remaining attacks anyway.

As for the note about 'just do whatever with the blueprints', that's how BG content has been designed thus far and it's why it's such a mess. We need constraints and limitations in order to properly balance content. When you design content lazily -- that is, just putting whatever random numbers you feel it should have, it leads to shit like save inflation, random immunities, mords everywhere, all mobs having super high natural AC (which thus is super easy to hit by warlocks and super hard to hit by sneaks) because taking the time to actually kit them out properly takes too much time, etc. We're moving away from an environment where you just throw a dart at the wall and hope it sticks.

Thus, if we go with 4, we need to consider how much damage players (and mobs) can put out in a single round, and adjust other systems to compensate (such as increasing how much HP everyone has. Which in turn requires increasing the amount of damage spells and traps do, and so on and so forth). Everything is connected. 3 is much easier to develop for because that's the way DnD was actually designed for. The more you move away from DnD's actual design, the harder it gets to balance things, and the worse the gameplay is.

I'm not saying we can't do 4 at all. But understand that the reason APR concerns me is because when designing for 4, my noticing how most epic mobs have 8+ APR was very, very concerning for me in terms how it would play in actual combat, with groups of mobs all hitting that many times per round. And let's not get started on Miss Marilith and her 14+ attacks per round at 45 AB. I'm scared about us moving into an environment of 'get surrounded by pack, take 20-25 attacks in one round, die before knowing what's going on'. This just continues to incentivize our 'AC is king' build meta.

[Rhifox]

Thanks to Rhifox for putting these options up for consideration to the community.

My own thoughts are: are these the only options?

What about a few simple/complex changes? Like, knocking back the magic to more low-magic environment (take EB down to +2 max, or just go with AB and extra dmg on items)? What about mob replacements where PCs aren’t slaying dragons daily—or greater sentient beings—and more Elementals and dumb Undead, some “greater” golems or maybe higher mass of lower quality mobs? What about making some restrictions on multicasting, so things like Red Wizard + Shadow Adept builds are not possible?

This already factored in. Mechanical 30, narrative 15. This functionally means that any level 30 system involves pnp mob HD x2. So a balor, 20 HD in MM, would be 40 HD on BG. Thus, if you want a boss at the end of gray peaks, a more suitable mob ends up being something like a horned devil or goristro.

Equipment would be changed if we lower the cap. Not if we maintain it at 30 (but consider that we already use gear 10 levels lower than a level 30 environment calls for, so BG has actually been rather restrained on that).

[mrm3ntalist]

As for the note about 'just do whatever with the blueprints', that's how BG content has been designed thus far and it's why it's such a mess. We need constraints and limitations in order to properly balance content. When you design content lazily -- that is, just putting whatever random numbers you feel it should have, it leads to (#2) like save inflation, random immunities, mords everywhere, all mobs having super high natural AC (which thus is super easy to hit by warlocks and super hard to hit by sneaks) because taking the time to actually kit them out properly takes too much time, etc. We're moving away from an environment where you just throw a dart at the wall and hope it sticks.

This is pretty much what has been happening all these years. My advice would be, whichever way you decide to go with, to set guidelines on
- what features/immunities/abilities should exist
- what should be available only through leveling ( classes) and not items
- what stats, number of skill points, max extra damage etc weapons and items in general should have

That was something that people were unwilling to do in the past which resulted in immunities appearing with PRCs ( eg knockdown immunity), items with crazy stats that were branded grandfathered and were allowed in game, various DR stacking that results in basically immune to damage characters etc

[Steve]

This already factored in. Mechanical 30, narrative 15. This functionally means that any level 30 system involves pnp mob HD x2. So a balor, 20 HD in MM, would be 40 HD on BG. Thus, if you want a boss at the end of gray peaks, a more suitable mob ends up being something like a horned devil or goristro.

I do understand that. But instead of a dragon at the end, or at Graypeaks a Balor, why not a HD 40 Fire Elemental?

Maybe my point isn't so much what Type of mobs and thus what new direction for Server Mechanics, but what are we going to use these mechanics for? It was touched upon a bit when Nlyh talked about the round-the-rose dungeon/Area design, that seems to occupy lots of Player time.

Thus, if option 3 is just about APR...there are still quite a lot of changes that need to be made about how Players will RP their Sheet to bring down all sorts of "off the chart" stats, like Saves, like Skills.

If it was even possible to take the NWN2 engine and make a faithful D&D 3.5e mechanical reproduction, I'd say go for it and whatever level cap you want. But I'm not convinced the Engine is the right choice for such a faithful system.

Epic Levels do cause a lot of problems. But it's likely a low level cap needs to be applied to a new Server entirely, not a new BGTSCC. Too many players simply like their choices from those Epic Levels, AND they are far too used to it. You really need to create a whole new environment from the outset, from the start.

I do however wish that THIS environment wasn't so bloated with gear/Items and of unlimited quantity. I think THAT aspect actually ruins the real fun in making builds, and also ruins the challenge when thinking about mobs (and also DM events). All the things that Players have in their builds and in their Inventories are thought of as infinite...and they kinda are. I would argue those things should be taken "in a new direction..." first, before veering too far from the status quo.

One can simplify to a Level 18 cap, and then PCs an get Level 9 spells. That could be enough. But this maybe is unsolicited spit-balling. Apologies.

In terms of "just do something," then likely lowering the APR to 4 for all PCs and mobs, might just be the easiest thing to make it easier to create a challenge, both for Devs and DMs. Combine that with some changes like reducing or removing Saves stacking, and other tweaks.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if for say, one week, there WAS a 4 APR cap and some Saves cap—and maybe DCs cap—put in place as a Test, and see just how the experience goes??

[Antras89]

we can always leave a 30 lvl, for classes/builds and for other interesting combinations (who can also create some interesting class combinations for rp) and do re-wamp/ change to be more hm.. lore wise with mobs/spawn. Even simple change name from Lich to "Undead mage" can made more sense (With well same statistic like curent lich have) same with baalor, change it to some less powerfull demon (by just name) also improve some lore. (with dragons can be problems, maybe to wyverns..? wyrms? ) And in this case open option if someone relly want to hunt for powerfull beast need to work, made event.

[Hullack]

As for the note about 'just do whatever with the blueprints', that's how BG content has been designed thus far and it's why it's such a mess. We need constraints and limitations in order to properly balance content. When you design content lazily -- that is, just putting whatever random numbers you feel it should have, it leads to (#2) like save inflation, random immunities, mords everywhere, all mobs having super high natural AC (which thus is super easy to hit by warlocks and super hard to hit by sneaks) because taking the time to actually kit them out properly takes too much time, etc. We're moving away from an environment where you just throw a dart at the wall and hope it sticks.

I'm not saying we can't do 4 at all. But understand that the reason APR concerns me is because when designing for 4, my noticing how most epic mobs have 8+ APR was very, very concerning for me in terms how it would play in actual combat, with groups of mobs all hitting that many times per round. And let's not get started on Miss Marilith and her 14+ attacks per round at 45 AB. I'm scared about us moving into an environment of 'get surrounded by pack, take 20-25 attacks in one round, die before knowing what's going on'. This just continues to incentivize our 'AC is king' build meta.

I still don't understand. If your concern is that the mobs are too strong then why can't you (you here referring to the hypothetical dev team as a whole) adjust the blueprints to make them weaker? All the things listed like save inflation, random immunities, creature spell lists, are all choices that were made when making that creature's blueprint in the toolset. If they're a problem then that's where its fixed -- that's what was meant by 'do whatever with the blueprints.' It sounds like there wasn't clear DEV guidelines in the past on creating mobs. I'm not advocating for throwing darts at the wall, rather standardizing and tuning down the blueprints with more defined design goal.

If the answer is man-power and sanity concerns with battling the toolset that's fair. I don't know how many blueprints are involved and how that stacks up against the other systemic changes options presented.

[mrm3ntalist]

As for the note about 'just do whatever with the blueprints', that's how BG content has been designed thus far and it's why it's such a mess. We need constraints and limitations in order to properly balance content. When you design content lazily -- that is, just putting whatever random numbers you feel it should have, it leads to (#2) like save inflation, random immunities, mords everywhere, all mobs having super high natural AC (which thus is super easy to hit by warlocks and super hard to hit by sneaks) because taking the time to actually kit them out properly takes too much time, etc. We're moving away from an environment where you just throw a dart at the wall and hope it sticks.

I'm not saying we can't do 4 at all. But understand that the reason APR concerns me is because when designing for 4, my noticing how most epic mobs have 8+ APR was very, very concerning for me in terms how it would play in actual combat, with groups of mobs all hitting that many times per round. And let's not get started on Miss Marilith and her 14+ attacks per round at 45 AB. I'm scared about us moving into an environment of 'get surrounded by pack, take 20-25 attacks in one round, die before knowing what's going on'. This just continues to incentivize our 'AC is king' build meta.

I still don't understand. If your concern is that the mobs are too strong then why can't you adjust the blueprints to make them weaker? All the things listed like save inflation, random immunities, creature spell lists, are all choices that were made when making that creature's blueprint in the toolset. If they're a problem then that's where its fixed -- that's what was meant by 'do whatever with the blueprints.' It sounds like there wasn't clear DEV guidlines in the past on creating mobs. I'm not advocating for throwing darts at the wall, rather standardizing and tuning down the blueprints with more defined design goal.

It is not as simple as just changing the blueprints and making them weaker. For example, if the huge HP pool is reduced by a lot then casters can have a field day with damaging spells and APR becomes so much important. From what i understand, the admins are asking us what are we willing to do and sacrifice in order for them to create a more fun environment. Having less APR for both NPCs and players could help for example, since it will will have less attributes to think, work on and balance. It is not as simple as just removing HP, increase AC etc

EDIT: to give you an example, the current meta is for every melee character to sacrifice the lowest 2 attacks ( which especially against bosses almost never hit ) and use combination of combat stances for more damage and or AC. Another is more APR means more attacks from stealth with the first flurry. When such similar things happen to a large extend, then it is difficult to find the right balance. Anyway, it is a much larger discussion that i am certain the devs are having behind the scenes

[Hullack]

As for the note about 'just do whatever with the blueprints', that's how BG content has been designed thus far and it's why it's such a mess. We need constraints and limitations in order to properly balance content. When you design content lazily -- that is, just putting whatever random numbers you feel it should have, it leads to (#2) like save inflation, random immunities, mords everywhere, all mobs having super high natural AC (which thus is super easy to hit by warlocks and super hard to hit by sneaks) because taking the time to actually kit them out properly takes too much time, etc. We're moving away from an environment where you just throw a dart at the wall and hope it sticks.

I'm not saying we can't do 4 at all. But understand that the reason APR concerns me is because when designing for 4, my noticing how most epic mobs have 8+ APR was very, very concerning for me in terms how it would play in actual combat, with groups of mobs all hitting that many times per round. And let's not get started on Miss Marilith and her 14+ attacks per round at 45 AB. I'm scared about us moving into an environment of 'get surrounded by pack, take 20-25 attacks in one round, die before knowing what's going on'. This just continues to incentivize our 'AC is king' build meta.

I still don't understand. If your concern is that the mobs are too strong then why can't you adjust the blueprints to make them weaker? All the things listed like save inflation, random immunities, creature spell lists, are all choices that were made when making that creature's blueprint in the toolset. If they're a problem then that's where its fixed -- that's what was meant by 'do whatever with the blueprints.' It sounds like there wasn't clear DEV guidlines in the past on creating mobs. I'm not advocating for throwing darts at the wall, rather standardizing and tuning down the blueprints with more defined design goal.

It is not as simple as just changing the blueprints and making them weaker. For example, if the huge HP pool is reduced by a lot then casters can have a field day with damaging spells and APR becomes so much important. From what i understand, the admins are asking us what are we willing to do and sacrifice in order for them to create a more fun environment. Having less APR for both NPCs and players could help for example, since it will will have less attributes to think, work on and balance. It is not as simple as just removing HP, increase AC etc

But... who cares? Oh no players are killing mobs?

[mrm3ntalist]

But... who cares? Oh no players are killing mobs?

It seems you do and everyone else posting here.