What is the 'ideal' power range?
-
@Arkandel said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
So does the existence of PvP/PK and/or a +warn mechanism relate to whether the power curve is normalized (and where) on a game?
I think it does. It's like how many (most? all?) MMOs do level-bracketed PVP. It isn't really fair or particularly fun if you've got lvl 1 people going up against lvl 100 people. But how do you do that in a pure open world like a MU where anybody could be pitted against anybody else at any time?
That's one of the reasons why I warn people in the game design section of the FS3 docs that it isn't well-suited for PVP games. The way chargen is structured, it allows two people to spend an equal number of points but walk out of chargen with essentially different "power levels". That's OK when one of them is the rookie under the wing of a veteran against a common enemy (as long as the rookie doesn't feel completely marginalized/useless in plots, as I mentioned earlier) but it's not particularly fair if you are putting them against each other IMHO.
I mean there's always the "life isn't fair why should the game be" mentality, but I'm not a fan personally.
-
@Arkandel said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
So does the existence of PvP/PK and/or a +warn mechanism relate to whether the power curve is normalized (and where) on a game?
It does, actually. I mean, I'm not sure that I can answer specifically your original question because I'm not -- entirely sure that it can actually be answered in any meaningful and systematic way.
But the existence of PvP/PK absolutely does relate to the power curve on a game. For starters, if you're looking for any sort of indicator of mechanical superiority, it's that. Whoever wins the most fights in a series of statistically relevant battles is the superior.
Perhaps more importantly, the increase of PC death/casualties that can come with PvP/PK pretty much ensures that eventually you have some kind of standard distributed spread going on, as higher-level characters will be more rare by sheer virtue of having picked each other off early.
The lack of it means that you will have a much flatter curve on that one, with everyone having much more parity with each other as many of the consequences of interacting with the game's inhabitants get pared down.
I'm still not sure that there is such a thing as an 'ideal power level' in a game. It's too broad and too situational, as has been discussed here already.. There isn't a formula that you can plug numbers into and go 'this is the universal answer'. So this is about as close to 'on topic' as we can really stay.
-
@Arkandel said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
Hey, my last 'AHEM THE THREAD IS GOING OFF TOPIC' post of this decade!
So does the existence of PvP/PK and/or a +warn mechanism relate to whether the power curve is normalized (and where) on a game? If so, please carry on. If not let's discuss that in a separate thread.
I think it does, and I apologize if it's taking the conversation in a different direction.
I'm not bringing up PK in a "we should get back to that because I like it" sense, but more in a "if you're going to have power levels, you have to consider that power won't just be some railroad that people get on with a constant rise" sense.
Or, in short: If you're going to consider power levels varying across your playerbase it may be wise to consider a mechanism that will allow for the rise and fall of power levels and the inevitable "class warfare" that may come between power levels.
I think +warn/pk/pvp was/is important to consider if varying power levels are in play because these systems have a way of breaking up parallels. Without loss, loss of power level, pc death, etc the date the PC was created will always maintain that character to be more capable/powerful than PCs made after its creation.
June 2020: Anne joins the game at level 1. Bob is level 5.
December 2020: Anne is level 5. Bob is level 12.
December 2024: Anne is level 30. Bob is level 38.
Any good life cycle requires destruction in the Kali sense
-
Yeah, it does. The reason I haven't posted in this thread is because I didn't want to derail it but it's a core consideration if a game hasn't banned it entirely.
If a game is entirely collaborative and has no meaningful PVP, then you're mostly balanced around reinforcing a feeling of worth and satisfaction at how much someone can meaningfully contribute, and power is important to that but honestly there's a number of settings where it's just not that important and it's more a matter of balancing how much attention each PC is shown and providing satisfying outcomes instead of how relatively strong each PC.
Now if PVP is a factor, that changes really heavily, because you have a couple questions about dinosaurs and how -much- of a power difference is fair, and people are going to be really heavily biased on how that should weigh. And there's a lot of questions that determine the flavor of the game.
What kind of chance in a fight should a fresh CG, brand new character have against the strongest character in the game? How easily should a new player be able to grow and rival the most established characters? Should an extremely powerful character ever be able to take on multiple characters simultaneously, even fresh CGs?
These aren't trivial questions. If a dinosaur can defeat fresh CGs with no risk, bullying can become extremely common place. If new CGs can threaten a dinosaur easily, you can have uninvested players casually drive off the most invested players in the game. The exact line of balance for power ranges may have an extremely strong effect on player behavior, barring other factors. It's not just about protecting new players from dinosaurs, but also protecting dinosaurs from feeling their time investment is completely meaningless, and being unwilling to do that and having no one at all do that.
-
@Apos said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
It's not just about protecting new players from dinosaurs, but also protecting dinosaurs from feeling their time investment is completely meaningless, and being unwilling to do that and having no one at all do that.
I think the healthiest way to go is make sure the Dinosaurs have things that they can point at and say 'I did that' rather then having the biggest numbers that ever numbered.
For a long while now I've been a fan of the idea of keeping the power level of PCs relatively level while trying to find ways they can feel they're shaping the game world itself.
-
@Groth said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
For a long while now I've been a fan of the idea of keeping the power level of PCs relatively level while trying to find ways they can feel they're shaping the game world itself.
I think FS3 games show that this philosophy can be successful. Anne and Bob may start out at different levels, but we're talking "rookie vs veteran" degree of difference here, not "Darth Vader vs Wedge". And the level difference depends more on where you started than how long you've been there.
You can start with level 6 (out of 7) in both Piloting and Gunnery if you want, yet you don't see Viper pilot players leaving in droves like: "Wellp; I've maxxed out my skills. There's nothing more to do here." There are other ways to measure achievement -- story arcs, relationships, thrilling heroics, even to a lesser degree medals, victory tallies and promotions.
Getting back to @Arkandel's original questions, I don't think there is such a thing as ideal power level as a universal constant. I think that there may be an ideal answer for a particular game depending on what kind of game you're trying to build.
-
@faraday said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
You can start with level 6 (out of 7) in both Piloting and Gunnery if you want, yet you don't see Viper pilot players leaving in droves like: "Wellp; I've maxxed out my skills. There's nothing more to do here." There are other ways to measure achievement -- story arcs, relationships, thrilling heroics, even to a lesser degree medals, victory tallies and promotions.
For what it's worth from a story telling perspective I'd put Wedge Antilles (Corellian frieghter pilot tuned star fighter) and Biggs Darklighter (Imperial trained pilot, friend of Luke's from home, visited after academy graduation in deleted scenes) at the same level or a few points off each other in FS3. Same chances maybe more gunnery in the trained Biggs. Biggs dies at Yavin 4 and Antilles is on ask three original trilogy films, firing the first torpedo in death star two to weaken it for Landos file through). Everyone has the same chances at start and to catch up a little after even only a few action skill raises. In a more complex system getting these two closer to the movie payout sounds nightmarish.
I prefer power variety but with equal chance for story impact. Vet's and rookies alike.