scrotiemcb
-
Posts
236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by scrotiemcb
-
-
Engagement: I mostly agree with anameforobsidian. I think the core of engagement is a good mechanic, but Obsidian has boosted it a bit too much.
In particular, I feel engagement should be damage OR interruption, not damage AND interruption. By this I mean that being amazing at both would be quite rare, and generally characters (both player and computer) would specialize in one or the other, or just be average at both. If interrupt truly is automatic, that is probably the one thing which most needs to change. Furthermore, disengagement attacks shouldn't receive natural bonuses to damage or Interrupt at all. There SHOULD be a Talent to increase disengagement damage significantly (perhaps to more than it is now), and a Talent to increase disengagement Interrupt significantly (but still not auto-success), but without specialization both damage and interrupt should have no bonuses.
Disengagement Accuracy, however, should have a bonus. That probably shouldn't change. Rarely should a character break engagement with no penalty at all.
As far as disengagement radius goes, I don't think they should be (much) smaller, I think they shouldn't trigger unless you try to leave that radius. This would allow for a "5 foot step" mechanic the game desperately needs.
Attributes:
I don't feel this is rocket science.
There are about 5 things characters care about offensively:
1. Damage per action
2. Actions per second
3. Area of effect
4. Duration
5. Initial positioning (ex: +Range for a ranged character, Stealth for a melee character)
So you put those 5 things on 5 different attributes, no doubling up.
There are about 6 things characters care about defensively:
1. Deflection
2. rate of incoming healing (could be stat on another character)
3. Health (not so much with Endurance)
4. Fortitude
5. Reflex
6. Will
You put these things on 6 different attributes, no doubling up.
The main reason PoE has dump stats is because the system doubles up. Any of the four Defenses have two sources rather than one exclusive source, allowing dump stats in tanks. Intelligence pounds both Duration AND Area of Effect, when one of those could have gone elsewhere to make a dump stat more desirable.
-
2
-
-
-
Roxor's review is obviously biased. Obviously. Like he's Stephen Colbert and he's reviewing Bears: the Game.
This doesn't mean he's completely lost his mind. A lot of his points resonate. He's unfair at time but fair more often. It spices his review rather than consumes it.
-
This assumes that class abilities are chosen before attributes, which is pretty much the opposite of the truth. Duration and AoE abilities should be the rewards of investing in the corresponding attributes, while a lack of AoE abilities should be viewed as the consequence, not the cause, of a lack of investment in Intelligence.It's impossible to make every stat equally worthwhile for every character type, because of course the whole point of specialising is you don't need some things. INT is already a dump stat for certain characters, for example.
-
Duration is no dump stat.
-
@b0rsuk
I specifically mentioned that damage-over-time and AoE damage abilities would have to be considered in class/ability design for the system to work. Vigor and Intelligence would definitely focus on active abilities more than on autoattacks.
I would feel completely comfortable scratching the five skills in the game completely. Athletics would be much more interesting as a % max Health system, where your characters get more sloppy the closer they get to death. As with AoE, increasing Vigor wouldn't increase the fatigue thresholds, but just give more "good Health." Every class would have more Health, knowing that the last fraction of it isn't very useful. Travel would represent a very gradual Health drain which could kill wounded characters outside of combat. Lore and Survival are both very meh. The only real stricking point would be Mechanics.
-
Decided to make a separate thread to separate proposals and prevent confusion.
Let us assume the primary goal is "no dump stats." This is a distinctly separate goal from "stats that fit the genre conventions."
What's important is that we start by analyzing the "squishy" character archetype first and completely, before moving on to defensive archetypes at all. This is because offense is always, always of some utility to a build, but defensive responsibilities can be wholly transferred onto other characters. Thus, the only way we can assure an attribute is never a dump stat is to ensure it has value to all squishies.
So let's go over what types of bonuses squishies desire.
1. Damage per action. This would be the best way to increase damage per second (DPS). It gets Attribute #1.
2. Actions per second. This would be a little worse than attribute #1 in raw DPS, but allow for better spread (less average overkill damage) and easier kiting. It gets Attribute #2.
3. Area of effect. Assuming some form of damaging AoE is available to all classes (ex: Blast no longer a Wizard-specific talent), then every class can increase functional DPS with increased AoE. This greeted Attribute #2.
4. Duration. Assuming some form of damage-over-time available to all classes (ex: Envenomed Strike), then every class can increase functional DPS with increased duration. This gets Attribute #4.
5. Range. This is useful for ranged DPS to engage enemies from further away, resulting in a functional damage increase against enemy melee. This goes to attribute #5. However, it assumes ranged DPS, so to ensure it isn't a dump stat, we'd have to give melee DPS a similar advantage.
6. Stealth. This can be used by melee DPS to get within attack range of enemies before the encounter begins. There is nothing saying Stealth must or should be handled by a non-Attribute system. This completes Attribute #5.
This just about exhausts traits which could be universally valued by squishies. Any additional attributes would fall under the category of defense. However, defenses which are more useful to squishies should probably get a chance here, and one particular squishy, the Priest, is missing an opportunity to improve one of his functions, healing.
What defense is better on squishies than more defensive characters? Endurance. Not Health, just Endurance. Tanks generally stack damage mitigation and are concerned about their rate of healing and their Health more than actual Endurance, since Health functionally determines when they drop assuming they outheal incoming damage. Thus, Attribute #6 would grant bonuses to Healing and Endurance (not Health)... as well as Concentration, so squishies who take #6 can escape engagement with less chance of KO.
Now for actually defensive characters. Since Attributes #1 and #2 increase autoattack DPS - an important fact for characters with limited, if any, active damage abilities, the defensive stats should be focused on Attributes 3 and 5, with perhaps a minor bonus to 4, which already improves any self-buffs the tank may have. (6 is already good defensively.) The two most important to include are damage mitigation and Health, so those go to 3 and 5, while the semi-useful Interrupt stat goes to 4, allowing low-damage tanks to disrupt enemies better.
Next, we have saves (Fort, Ref, Will). These should all be on a single attribute, not two! Doubling them up just makes the attributes less distinctive.
Combine the above concepts, make one concession for flavor (switch AoE and Duration), through in interrupt, and we have...
Might: +% Damage, + Fortitude
Vigor (previously Constitution): +% Duration, +% Health
Dexterity: +% Action Speed, + Reflex
Perception: +% Range and Vision, + Stealth, + Deflection
Intelligence: +% Area of Effect, + Interrupt, + Logic (formerly Will)
Resolve: +% Healing, +% Endurance, + Concentration
I think that's about as non-dumpy as the attribute system could get, assuming six attributes rather than five.
-
1
-
-
On second thought, shouldn't have necro'd this. I don't think anyone is responding to what I wrote.
-
The OP is a bad idea. Not because I dislike the cipher resource system, or that I want other classes to be unfun. Instead, it's that I feel each class should come as close as possible to having its own distinct feel and, if possible, its own resource system. I think the similarity in feel between Wizard spells and Druid/Priest spells is something which should be further accentuated, in a good way, rather than a boring "equality" solution of doing away with Grimoires and giving Wizards access to their entire spell list. Not that that's the topic; just saying.
I feel AT MOST two classes could use the Focus mechanic, and even that would force one class to be "ranged cipher" and the other "melee cipher." More likely than not, even that much separation would be unhealthy for the game. We're probably best off with Focus being a mechanic for one class only.
-
I discredited this nonsense pages ago.If you play a game for 100 hours you enjoyed. If you say otherwise you are lying. Not just to others but to yourself.
-
Now you have two dump stats for pure-squishy Ciphers, Vigor and Resolve. That's why.
In all seriousness, the entire skill system should probably be scrapped. Doesn't add to gameplay at all. (Athletics should be a % of max Health mechanic.)
-
We need less new content and more fixed content.
-
I've been thinking about this issue and decided a necro made more sense than creating a new thread.
Let us assume the primary goal is "no dump stats." This is a distinctly separate goal from "stats that fit the genre conventions."
What's important is that we start by analyzing the "squishy" character archetype first and completely, before moving on to defensive archetypes at all. This is because offense is always, always of some utility to a build, but defensive responsibilities can be wholly transferred onto other characters. Thus, the only way we can assure an attribute is never a dump stat is to ensure it has value to all squishies.
So let's go over what types of bonuses squishies desire.
1. Damage per action. This would be the best way to increase damage per second (DPS). It gets Attribute #1.
2. Actions per second. This would be a little worse than attribute #1 in raw DPS, but allow for better spread (less average overkill damage) and easier kiting. It gets Attribute #2.
3. Area of effect. Assuming some form of damaging AoE is available to all classes (ex: Blast no longer a Wizard-specific talent), then every class can increase functional DPS with increased AoE. This greeted Attribute #2.
4. Duration. Assuming some form of damage-over-time available to all classes (ex: Envenomed Strike), then every class can increase functional DPS with increased duration. This gets Attribute #4.
5. Range. This is useful for ranged DPS to engage enemies from further away, resulting in a functional damage increase against enemy melee. This goes to attribute #5. However, it assumes ranged DPS, so to ensure it isn't a dump stat, we'd have to give melee DPS a similar advantage.
6. Stealth. This can be used by melee DPS to get within attack range of enemies before the encounter begins. There is nothing saying Stealth must or should be handled by a non-Attribute system. This completes Attribute #5.
This just about exhausts traits which could be universally valued by squishies. Any additional attributes would fall under the category of defense. However, defenses which are more useful to squishies should probably get a chance here, and one particular squishy, the Priest, is missing an opportunity to improve one of his functions, healing.
What defense is better on squishies than more defensive characters? Endurance. Not Health, just Endurance. Tanks generally stack damage mitigation and are concerned about their rate of healing and their Health more than actual Endurance, since Health functionally determines when they drop assuming they outheal incoming damage. Thus, Attribute #6 would grant bonuses to Healing and Endurance (not Health)... as well as Concentration, so squishies who take #6 can escape engagement with less chance of KO.
Now for actually defensive characters. Since Attributes #1 and #2 increase autoattack DPS - an important fact for characters with limited, if any, active damage abilities, the defensive stats should be focused on Attributes 3 and 5, with perhaps a minor bonus to 4, which already improves any self-buffs the tank may have. (6 is already good defensively.) The two most important to include are damage mitigation and Health, so those go to 3 and 5, while the semi-useful Interrupt stat goes to 4, allowing low-damage tanks to disrupt enemies better.
Add it all together, toss in saves, and you get something like this...
Might: +% Damage, + Fortitude
Vigor: +% Area of Effect, +% Health, + Fortitude
Dexterity: +% Action Speed, + Reflex
Perception: +% Range and Vision, + Stealth, + Deflection, + Reflex
Intelligence: +% Duration, + Interrupt, + Will
Resolve: +% Healing, +% Endurance, + Concentration, + Will
I think that's about as non-dumpy as the attribute system could get, assuming six attributes rather than five.
-
You're strawmanning my analogy and brushing aside my main argument. A gamer (particularly a paying customer) can play for hours upon hours in hope things will get better. It is hope, misguided or not, which makes us do things we dislike. Admittedly, this is usually something akin to gambler's fallacy, but I never said we're always logical beings.
Bad analogy.
Sure you can. I was miserable for well over a year before I looked into getting divorced. Sticking with something horrible is all about your hope of things getting good, and very little to do with whether they are.You don't play a game for 200 hours and say it sucks
If you get married, you are married until you make an effort to divorce.
When you start playing Pillars of Eternity, you aren't glued to the computer until you finish it. If you feel glued to computer while playing PoE, it's probably not because it sucks.
-
Sure you can. I was miserable for well over a year before I looked into getting divorced. Sticking with something horrible is all about your hope of things getting good, and very little to do with whether they are.You don't play a game for 200 hours and say it sucks
-
5
-
-
I really don't think the game needs cosmetic changes. It is pretty enough. Gameplay is the main issue. I think some of the quests could be fleshed out a bit better but that pales in importance to mechanics and encounter design.
-
1
-
-
As I said in the other, appropriate thread for this discussion...
The Codex review wasn't entirely spot-on. A lot of what it had to say about gameplay was. Pretty much every complaint about the writing wasn't. But this is what happens when you get an otherwise sane reviewer and have them spend 40 hours slogging through unfun gameplay. They're in the middle of yet another copypasta fight and think to themselves "that writing had better be spectacular." They overhype themselves in a grim way. The result is that they're underwhelmed when good things do happen.
PoE has good story, good music, good art. Its gameplay, however, is simply attrocious. It's actually a pain in the behind to actually *play* this game. So it should surprise no one that the joy of the story, art and music are soured for anyone who actually trudges through the whole thing... unless they are very, very forgiving.
What this game needs is to keep its visual, audio, and writing assets as they are, but make broad, deep, and sweeping changes to its mechanics, and perhaps more importantly to its encounter design.
-
1
-
-
Regarding confuse/charm grazes:
If you ask me, the problem is not that the status effect on these abilities is constant, but that the accuracy bonus is consistent across every spell/power. Giving a power 30 less Accuracy and double the damage/duration would make it far more of a hit-or-miss (technically, graze-or-miss); conversely, adding 30 Accuracy and halving damage/duration gives a very consistent ability, the equivalent of a "no save," but defense would still help you a little bit. It also changes min-max goals, as hit-to-crit conversion is useless for the former and handy for the latter.
But Obsidian didn't do anything like this. The shear raw amount of sameness and mechanical non-diversity is staggering. Hell, a bunch of Priest buffs are essentially unabashed clones of each other.
-
1
-
-
Regarding the Codex claim that writing is bad: It isn't. However, I feel I can make a strong case that it isn't good enough.
I agree with pretty much everything the Codex review has to say about gameplay and character customization and sameness and AI. After discussing all these things, Roxor writes
If you take a moment to consider Roxor's psychology during gameplay, you would imagine someone (rightfully) frustrated with the game's combat and progression mechanics, gritting their teeth as they grind for story. After all, the promise of good writing is basically the sole motive for playing at this point.let’s finally focus on the stuff that Obsidian has always excelled at – the writing and quest design – and see if at least here we can find a saving grace.
The result of this is a form of overhyping. Regardless of what one is playing for, when the gameplay itself feels like unenjoyable work, the fruits of one's labor have their taste soured. Knowingly placing yourself in a Skinner box inevitably leads to saltiness.
Lacking this self-awareness, I believe Roxor trashed the game's writing far worse than it deserved. It was almost definitely good enough to propel him forward through hours of self-torture to hopefully get some tasty morsels of delicious story. It's why he played the whole game instead of part. It was the single best part of the game for him.
Well, that's a little speculative. But it was the best part of the game for me.
But the key point here is this: it isn't enough. You might string along players with the story, compelling them to trudge through the game, but except for a few diehards you're going to end with a lot of salty dudes asking "wait, this is it?" The writing may be good, even the strongest part of Pillars, but it is NOT a saving grace. I doubt know if any writing could possibly be good enough to be one.
Everything before that in Roxor's review is basically spot on. This is supposed to be a CRPG, not a fantasy novel. The game rises or falls not on its story, but on its gameplay. Gameplay which has been neglected so the Eternity team could focus on creating obscure languages. It seems Obsidian's penchant for writing has gone completely unrestrained in an indie-dev environment, causing a disastrous misalignment of priorities.
-
5
-
-
I haven't played any Obsidian games before this. Or BG. Or really anything CRPG, except Divinity OS.
But outside of those potential points of contention, the Codex review seems pretty accurate. To be honest, I don't think I'll ever end up beating the game; I'm already pretty bored with it.
-
FTFYSo the best melee rogue uses a quarterstaff or a pike.
-
3
-
-
I still want it to happen.I've never heard of characters dying on missions, nor does the game mention anything about it whatsoever. I don't think I believe you without some evidence.
-
No likes for my first post in this thread? I thought it was a good suggestion.
-
1
-
-
Am I a bad person for hoping this happens?There is a chance Eder might die permenantly on mission.
Hard Talk on Character Build Freedom, Attributes and Combat
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by scrotiemcb
More on Attributes:
I've made this post before in other threads and received almost entirely negative response. Expecting a different outcome is probably insane. But I really do feel strongly about this.
To recap, squishies (max offense, min defense builds) care primarily about roughly 4 things:
1. Damage per action
2. Actions per second
3. Area of effect
4. Duration
(and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know 1 & 2 are the most important, because they are independent of the character's limited-use abilities.)
Tanks, on the other hand, care primarily about 6 things:
1. Rate of incoming healing
2. Deflection
3. Health
4/5/6. Fort/Ref/Will
(and the first 2 are most important for tanking the vast majority of damage in the game.)
I didn't include max Endurance under tanking because it's rarely an issue. As long as heals match incoming damage, Health is more of a limiter than Endurance.
Squishies are the harder problem, but doing the tank split is easy...
MIG: Fortitude
CON: Health
DEX: Reflex
PER: Deflection
INT: Will
RES: Healing
Doesn't really make sense that Intelligence would increase a defense called Will, but resolve wouldn't. So let's rename the defense without really changing it.
INT: Logic
From here, we begin matching squishy stuff with tanky stuff.
First, the two weakest defenses get the top two squishy priorities...
MIG: Damage, Fortitude
DEX: Action Speed, Reflex
Then the 3rd weakest defense gets the 3rd strongest squishy priority...
INT: Area of Effect, Logic
The 3rd strongest tank attribute gets the 4th strongest squishy priority...
CON: Duration, Health
Admittedly, this one is a little weird. So let's rename Constitution to something which better fits the twin concepts of Duration and Health: Vigor (VIG).
Lastly, as it's clear that Healing can be good for certain squishies, providing heal support from squishy to frontliners, it deserves the weakest squishy benefit. I believe the logical choice here is insurance against getting trapped in engagement, both in terms of damage and interrupt.
RES: Healing, Endurance, Concentration
This wraps us up with...
MIGHT: Damage, Fortitude
VIGOR: Duration, Health
DEXTERITY: Action Speed, Reflex
PERCEPTION: (TBD squishy benefit), Deflection
INTELLIGENCE: Area of Effect, Logic
RESOLVE: Healing, Endurance, Concentration
I feel pretty good about the above.
The portion I haven't been able to solve to my complete satisfaction is what to add to Perception to prevent it from being a total dump stat for squishies. The best I've been able to come up with is a pair of bonuses: increased Range for ranged attacks, and Stealth for melee attacks. This would mean Stealth wouldn't be a skill anymore, though, so yet another system would require revision.
Anyone have any better ideas?