George_Truman

Age of Decadence! My man u know whats up. Although the choice of combat was more like: what do I want to wear while I throw nets on people and whack them with my poisoned axe?

Obviously I am far from an expert on this kind of stuff, but it makes sense to me that armor doesn't effect your accuracy or deflection. I imagine deflection as an aggregate of one's ability to dodge, parry, and block incoming attacks. Obviously armor limits your mobility, but it also drastically reduces the surface area that it susceptible to damage. You can't move as quickly, but you also have less that you need to defend. The weakpoints of armor are still protected, so the DR benefit makes sense too. Accuracy is similar IMO. Yeah you are less mobile but you can also expose much more of your body in the attack because it is protected. More options = more hits. In terms of melee combat I would figure that there ought to be a pretty objective benefit to wearing armor. I think it would make sense for there to be other tradeoffs to incentivise light armor for melee - particularly move speed and ranged avoidance/reflex.

I have seen a few people mention that they don't think there is an advantage to little or no armor. Obviously defensively this is true but the attack speed malus has a huge impact on some of the most damaging builds. Under the effects of DAoM potion that 50% (~22%dps loss) malus becomes a 100% (~31%dps loss) malus, and gets worse as you stack more and more AS (until you max out). At max recovery that malus represents a ~41% dps loss. You can hit full recovery with 2 handers in plate but it is going to require a good bit of investment. My point is that I wouldn't expect to have a no-shield light armor tank without a serious damage tradeoff.

I was thinking it might be fun to include some more in-depth interactions with the four defenses and weapon attacks. I think it would make sense for ranged attacks to target reflex instead of deflection. Missiles tend to be near impossible to dodge or parry but hitting a moving target can be very difficult. The quickness and situational awareness represented by dexterity, perception, and their governed reflex defence are much more suitable for general ranged avoidance. I think the biggest flaw in this line of thinking is the effectiveness of shields against missiles (moreso arrows than bullets but w/e) but I think this would already be accounted for with the weapon and shield talent. I would also love to see fortitude play a role in defense against powerful attacks. I thought that the barbarian ability that allows for attacks to target fortitude over deflection was pretty cool and I would love for that property to be expanded to appropriate attacks. Maybe made into a general two handed talent or part of a specialization for a weapon like morning stars and made into a property for the attacks of 'large' enemies like trolls, ogres, and dragons. *edit* I think bypassing deflection altogether doesn't make much sense - if you dodge the blow it doesn't matter if you aren't strong enough to block it. I like more the idea of certain attacks gaining accuracy if the attacker's fortitude sufficiently exceeds the defender's. What are your thoughts on this - too much or a premise you want to see explored?

I was just raging at this the other day.

I would love for a high tier Wizard weapon to be "citzal's fists"

They aren't talents anymore. They are their own thing that only compete with other weapon specializations.

This sounds pretty horrible to me. I absolutely hate having spent talent points only to find that I'll get no use from them later. If Deadfire has a respec function then, in this situation, I would simply respec and pick the modal for the pollaxe.But they have announced that you get multiple weapon specializations and that they only compete with other weapon specializations. So no matter what you get redundant weapon talents. That change is why I think that mapped out builds won't be quite so hurt. For instance in PoE if I want a sword and shield barbarian that inflicts disorienting I can choose between the early game spear or the late game hammer. The hammer is better IMO because I can get zero recovery with speed pretty easily (it has 1 extra enchant). So now I have two options: I can hold off weapon focus and grab the spear for the effect, or get early focus and use a different weapon (or have a wasted talent). With the new system I can grab both focuses with little/no downside and use both to their full effectiveness. Thats what I mean by fluid builds and that is why I dont think preplanned builda will hurt too much - because the new system drastically opens up weapon possibilities. This system would allow high perception builds to use strikehard and resolution early, then godspalunker and purgatory late etc. They are closing one door but I think they are opening quite a few more. you eventually face the choice of synergy vs quality. And i think this is where the word choice looses its meaning and where i dont understand the argument. What you call choice i call forced selection. What I mean is this - an attack speed build is going to favor a superb blade of the endless paths over a mythic abydon's hammer. Durgan's plays a role but even then both items have unique properties but one nets me much more with high speed and interrupt.

The way it us right now almost all special items have a similar number of special effects. What happens frequently is you find a weapon that has two good secondary effects in the early game (daenesys, bittercut, or tall grass) and it becomes red, blue, and green all in one. It becomes optimal to use that weapon the whole game. In that case it seems like there is no choice at all. That is super boring for a lot of people. When you are limited to how much you can upgrade an item, you eventually face the choice of synergy vs quality. It also allows designers to add powerful items to the early game that may not scale well, like the dragon sword in Dank Souls. Limiting enchanting and expanding weapon specializations like they plan can lead to cool choices throughout the game. Maybe you find a high quality polearm that seems like an obvious upgrade, but you feel that you are getting more out of the modal for your weaker estoc. Maybe you can switch between the two depending on the situation now that you don't lose 6 accuracy. What I mean is that limiting quality adds a new dimension to choosing your weapon other than its extra properties. The way it is now with the white march: you pick your weapon, you slather it with durgan, and you are good to go. I actually think durgan is also lame as it even further diminishes incentive to use multiple weapons. As far as creating whole-game builds I think the change creates more depth as it encourages you to flow from weapon to weapon instead of having a very singular plan.

I don't know I feel like there was an appropriate amount of obnoxious behavior. It can be a little disengaging when the world is littered with stereotypes, especially in a game that strives to paint its characters and situations realistically. I do think the new environment lends itself to fresh interactions though.

Nothing makes me more angry than videogames!

I have always thought Ironskin was god awful. Now it makes more sense.

^ I usually like to save after a fight where I sustain unnecessary injuries then go back and see if I can beat it without knockouts/phat health loss to make myself feel better.

V 1 B O Y Z !

Obsidian pls make game how I want it or else I will be very upset!

What if they added Berath's blessings that were available off the bat that slow your XP gains to account for being completionist?

I think the whole resting system is pretty cool but feel it will always cause balance issues in a free roam game like this. I sort of wish that the game would "lock" you into certain situations so that a series of battles/interactions could be built around a fixed number of rests. Maybe a limit to the amount of interactable tools you can carry as well (prybar, grappling hook, etc). Otherwise, I wouldn't mind them scrapping resting altogether, maybe instead making abilities turn based to encourage progression, or all per encounter. That allows the designers a consistent power level to work with and build encounters around. The healing I am not super worried about because different enemies can be made to outlast grindy comps or burst down too fragile of comps. Obsidian can tweak the opportunity cost of healing now that health is not working against it.

My life...

The gripe you appear to have (the balance issue with hitting the level cap) can also be solved by an adjusted scaling system. The problem with losing incentive is imo best fought, as someone already stated in the thread, by good endgame writing/quest design. I feel like that aspect was done well in PoE - by the endgame you were interacting with some pretty interesting people/beings.

You sound like a serial flasher.

I think what you are experiencing is very much intended. A lot of players want to be able to play a decent portion of the game with a fully-realized build.

@Boeror do you think dumping the quality enchants altogether would be a reasonable solution? Instead of endgame weapons having flat bonuses to damage and accuracy they might have a few extra effects instead. Also isn't it their current plan to progressively add weapon specializations (now tradeoff modals instead of straight bonuses) as you level? That system seems built to address the BG problem of punishing you for not having already played the game.

In terms of pure damage accuracy has diminishing returns, as opposed to say speed enchants which compound upon one another up to max speed. I think there is pretty reasonable balance between the different components of weapon dps.

As far as roleplaying within the context of the game-world goes, I feel like this change helps rather than hurts. Most realistic individuals would choose a weapon for its practicality/power rather than its aesthetics. Limitations on enchanting also already exist in the game - you cannot give weapons speed, rending, wounding, etc. I don't see very much discontent with this and I assume it is because the benefits of the enchantments tend to be less opaque than +damage +accuracy. I personally like the idea of static power levels for weapons but I would love for the quality system to go. I would much prefer to see weapons with more unique properties both good and bad. For instance: accuracy loss/gain, varying penetration, speed loss/gain, varying base damages, life steal/sacrifice, etc. Some weapons can be just plain better but I always prefer power to come from synergy rather than flat stat bonuses.

I think an ooze might make for a pretty good sexual companion.