Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Raenvan

  1. on condition the progression pace is the same. It all depends on whether ability trees are front-loaded or back-loaded. The original intention must have been to compensate the overall slower progress of multiclasses towards higher levels with wider pool and greater number of abilities. But many melee ability trees turned out to be particularly front-loaded, so something needed to be done... Now single-classes gain slightly more ability points. As long as low-level multiclasses can combine strong initial passives from both sides, the current system seems ok to me.
  2. When single-classes had gained one new ability per level in previous beta versions, many complained that they had been much behind multiclasses (who had got an extra one at every third level, that is +33%). Now single-classes receive two at every new power level (50% more), and become suddenly overwhelming?
  3. Your argument makes sense, although I wonder how common it might be to go for the attrition route. By the way, Resolve isn't the best label for such a characteristic.
  4. If most players (including me) keep Resolve at neutral 10, it becomes a constant "attribute". Which would be equivalent with a removed attribute, except for the major unforseen consequences
  5. Even so, they have got rid of PoE Concentration and substituted Resolve conversation checks with skills. Almost nothing has survived, just the attribute itself (before the Might split).
  6. Of course not, yet it's a big struggle to fill Resolve with value! It seems strange for me that the number of attributes had been set in stone long time ago, before defining their effects (and what they exactly represent).
  7. +1 to ditch Resolve, and to revert Strength to Might. I'd rather give the Deflection bonus to Perception, as it seems to be somewhat inferior to Dexterity right now. I can't see a good place to the lost Will bonus. It might be easier to restore some kind of symmetry by removing the Fortitude bonus from Might, and Reflex from Dexterity.
  8. It seems that Perception granting +1 Accuracy is a bit weak (about +2% DPS), but it would be overpowered with +2 Accuracy (+4% DPS). On the other hand, STR and RES affect weapon/spell damage similarly (+3% DPS), but are otherwise asymmetric because RES also increases Deflection. Moving +1 Deflection from Resolve to Perception (on the top of +1 Accuracy) could remedy both problems. In fact, such an effect should be naturally expected from Perception.
  9. This idea has been already discussed in the following thread: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/95062-simple-rebalance-for-resperdexmight. Proposals included +1.5 accuracy per Perception, or increasing Crit damage bonus.
  10. Going back to one of the first posts... The original intention must have been to compensate to overall slower progress of multiclasses towards high-level abilities with more weaker ones. Beta versions fail this last aspect, as low-level melee passives can be overpowered. As long as some low-level abilities remain stronger than high-level ones, nothing justifies the extra ability points of multiclasses. There are two possible fixes: The elegant, but hard way. Ensure that all low-level abilities are weaker than higher level ones. Simply cancel the extra ability points of multiclasses.
  11. You wouldn't have to. Single classes gain a new power level at every 2nd character level (except end-game), multiclasses at every 3rd (I don't see why end-game is different, though.)
  12. I expected exactly the same linear scaling with power levels, and still believe that it would be best option. On the other hand, it seems that today's incomplete implementation has caused so much confusion. Some recommend removing power levels completely, or making them irrelevant (like +1% bonus per level). Multiclasses having zero level passives larger than 50% causes significant disparity only if those passives are overpowered. If, for example, paladins defenses at first level were +2 instead of +20, nobody could complain about serious imbalance. That's the most important point in power level scaling! As of now, many low-level passives grant (nearly) 100% of their bonus immediately. If this particularly front-heavy behavior (100%+0% per power level) were changed to linear or even slightly superlinear, multiclasses would become much less attractive. A moderately front heavy curve (like 30%+7% per power level) might still favor multiclasses, but the difference would be much smaller.
  13. Straight reduction for multiclasses seems easier to code indeed, unless devs have a working system for power level scaling at hand. I'd miss some secondary goals of power scaling though (improved balance between single classes, partial regain of the lost 30% on higher levels, etc.) That said, I can imagine a minimal (not optimal), easy-to-implement plan that addresses the most severe single-/multi-class imparities. That would reduce the bonuses granted by few, specific abilities for multiclasses to around 60-70%. This reduction should be limited mostly to innate abilities of some classes and to selected low-level, easily accessible passives like Paladin's defense boosts and some Paladin subclass bonuses, Barbarian Carnage and Berserker inspirations, Rogue's Sneak Attack/Backstab, Cipher's Soul Whip/Biting Whip, Fighter's Constant recovery. Other multiclass passives wouldn't be affected, neither extra ability points of multiclasses. Such a restricted rationalization might solve a notable portion of the problem to my hopes.
  14. Multiclass characters can't even get class-based passives that provide resistances until level 10 at the earliest (barring console hijinks) in most cases since they don't become available until power level 4. One Dozen Stood Against the Power of a Saint is a notable exception, though, since it's power level 2 and thus available to multi-class characters at level 4 rather than 10. Perfectly agree. I asked about low-level abilities specifically, because usually those make multiclasses superior. Medium level abilities matter much less by definition, since multiclasses get them only several levels later. These can form the core list of passives that should be rationalized first. I'd add Barbarian's Carnage, and Berserker's inspirations that grant extra penetration and/or armor rating given their primary importance. Since all of these abilities are obtained at low levels, the only option to introduce power level scaling is to reduce their initial effects. On later levels, however, they could scale up to (or even exceed) the current bonuses.
  15. In the long term, ideally all abilities depend on power levels, of course. What I meant above is that a small number of low-level passives tend to make few multiclasses superior in the actual betas. Those selected ones could be rationalized and tested in relatively short time.
  16. I don't quite follow your logic here; if passives scale with power level wont this mean multiclass passives will always be greater than 50%? Mechanically halving passives for multiclass wont be quite enough by itself, as they will often build better upon each other, however while the higher tiered passives may not be better than lower tiers they are still useful which multiclass either get later or can't get. For this reason the Paladin/Berserker should be slightly more powerful before taking these into account. The issues is that currently they get 100% passive benefits which is obviously going to cause imbalance. A straight 50-60% reduction to multiclass passives is worth exploring and likely easier to implement. You're right about multiclass passives being greater than 50% with power scaling. This might not be a big problem, though, I'd guess that ~70% would be still acceptable. Also agree that the straight reduction could be worth exploring, but I don't like the idea of getting rid of power levels completely that you suggested in a previous post. Let me try to outline the expected effects of passives subject to power scaling. At low character levels, say 1-6, multiclasses often remain better, since their power level is the same or just 1 below single classes. Hopefully not a big issue if the most overpowered passives are (selectively) toned down both for single classes and multis. No more +20 paladin defenses here, for example. Power scaling hurts multiclasses in midgame, although their bonuses exceed 50%. The amount depends on the applied curve (simple proportional scaling, initial value+slope, etc.). Singles and multis might be balanced. On high character levels (say 16-20), single classes can shine due to some high-level abilities not available to multis. I'm not fully convinced that power scaling should affect all abilities, neither all passives. It'd be wise to start with a dozen of selected, strong, low-level passives first.
  17. Do Resistances make any classes really overpowered at low levels? If yes, why not assigning some odds to them that scale with power level? (Otherwise multiclasses wouldn't be affected so much, I guess.)
  18. That doesn't work because most of the really good passives have step change effects, like +1 engagement or downgrading all afflications of a certain type one level. Would you please specify which step-effect passives are you referring to. I'm interested if they could be made power level dependent in a continuous manner.
  19. I also like passives, but some of them are simply too strong at their levels, especially if you compare them to same-level abilities of other classes. Overpowered multiclasses are often based on two of the best single classes, and - in some sense - work similarly to picking a single level for its huge bonuses in other games. Consider this example from other thread: To fix this, the mentioned passives should be toned down (and upscaled later with power levels) to match other classes' low-level abilities. (Mechanically halving multi-class passives might not be enough.)
  20. Even without multiclassing, first priority should be given to balance single classes, which requires nerfing low-level strong passives among others. If all single-classes had comparable progression (roughly equally strong abilities on every level), multi-classing based on power levels could be automatically satisfactory in some degree. It seems easier to me to balance 11 single classes than all their combinations, after all
  21. One could scale the damage done to nearby foes with power levels. Why does it need to be a flat percentage of the primary damage?
  22. I don't see why some passives could not scale with power levels. If, for some reason unknown to me, abrupt changes looked yet attractive, a stepwise approach that approximates continuous power level scaling might be implemented. Consider the following example for paladin's deep faith: grant some basic innate bonus (say +6 deep faith), and offer remarkable selectable upgrades upon reaching certain power levels (+6 on power level 4, +8 on 8 ). This allows only single-class paladins to take the last upgrade, which also matches the other valuable suggestion regarding powerful endgame abilities.
  23. The simple solution is to make Biting Whip depend on power levels, just like every other strong low-level abilities. Like a bonus of power level times 5% instead of flat 40%.
  24. It's definitely the good direction, although still front-loaded since multiclasses lag behind only 1-3 power levels (something like 10% difference in deep faith). I'd advise linear scaling, say +2 deep faith per power level. An alternative stepwise approach could grant some basic innate bonus (say +6 deep faith), and offer remarkable selectable upgrades upon reaching certain power levels (+6 on power level 4, +8 on 8 ). I'm starting to believe that single vs. multiclass balance might be easier to reach than many think. Just balance single classes by reducing low-level, flat and strong passives, and make power levels matter.
  25. One shortcoming of this particular system is that the usefulness of Con depends explicitly on Per. Boosting critical damage (high Con) would be nonsense for somebody with low Perception and low Accuracy. The second idea is very attractive There exist already an indirect link between Con and offensiveness. Heavy armor is suggested for many builds. More HP from high Con might, at least in theory (usefulness depends on numbers), allow to wear one grade lighter armor, increasing overall speed and DPS. From this viewpoint, Con can be traded for offensiveness.
  • Create New...