Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Raenvan


    I think it makes sense for single and multiclass characters to have the same number of total abilities.

    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.

    • Like 1
  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?



    If "empower" (in quotes to mean it could replenish powers, boost powers, whatever--not being specific here) results in an OP attribute if you are in a fight for 10 minutes (probably less, just picking a number) and an underpowered attribute if you are in a fight for 10 seconds (again, just picking a number), then resolve becomes the important attribute for those who go for an attrition win in combat and a dump stat for those how like to resolve combat with alpha strikes. That's a good result. It also gives resolve an identity as the stat you want if your fights go long.


    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. I feel that removing an attribute would lead to a bigger ****storm, than keeping resolve as a "meh" stat. If the new "empower" system will be kept I imagine I will keep resolve mostly at 10, maybe except a high might/resolve mage, for a big DPS. Whenever, removing "resolve" would lead to major unforseen consequences, I can't say. 


    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. Josh has already stated they are not getting rid of an attribute(s).


    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. Josh has already stated they are not getting rid of an attribute(s). 



    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. Really what i'm asking is how obsidian could possible justify multiclass characters getting not only an essentially free extra set of level 0 skills, but another 7 ability points to spend?


    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:

    1. The elegant, but hard way. Ensure that all low-level abilities are weaker than higher level ones.
    2. Simply cancel the extra ability points of multiclasses.
  10. When I heared about multiclassing for the first time in the video I thought it goes like this: (the numbers are just arbitrary examples)

    - rogues get +10% sneak attack damage per power level, a lv1 rogue does 10%sneak damage, al lv20 single class 90% and a lv 20 multi class 70%

    - barbarians frenzy gains +10% damage and AoE per power level

    - paladins gain +5% fire damage of FoD and +2 to all defenses (faith and devotion) per power level

    - spells get +X% damage/duration/penetration/acc per power level

    - and so on for the other classes

    So a single class char is always better in what (s)he is doing than a multi class char starting at lv3, but a multi class char gets abilities from 2 classes, hopefully with some synergies.


    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).


    To achieve a reasonable balance the tier zero passives would need to start at 50% (Given level and power level are the same at level 1). This could be raised later to somewhere between 60-80% depending on how much power level affects abilities, how powerful top tier abilities are, how useful resistances prove to be at high level etc.


    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.

    • Like 1
  11. Personally I'd think it'd be easier coding wise to reduce multi class passives by a straight 70%, then implement power levels after we get a chance to see how this balances.


    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.

  12. 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.)

    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.


    +1 engagement doesn't seem particularly impressive to me either compared to class passives like Sneak Attack/Backstab, Soul Whip/Biting Whip, or Faith and Devotion, which are amenable to adjustment based on power level.


    powerup the single classes is gonna result in an increase in the multiclass synergie issue, not lessen it.  is never popular, but what is called for in this situation is selective and specific nerfs rather than generalized powerups. 


    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.

  13. 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.


    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.

  14. Option 2: Halve every passive for multiclass, This comes out with a slight advantage to multiclass when there is synergy, We could get rid of power levels and perhaps reduce the restricted access to only the highest tier.



    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.)


    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.

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.


    I agree passives are an issue, so I like Boeroer's suggestion of having passives be A + b(powerlevel) instead of a flat number like 50% sneak attack or 15% like weapon specialization. That way single class gains a quick and consistent lead over multiclass both in powers of individual abilities and in terms of their passive.


    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.

  16. Don't nerf the strong passives. They're the only actually interesting ones. Besides, getting rid of the strong passives doesn't make multiclassing any less desirable, it just makes it moreso, because you have to look for real synergies to counter the decrease in power, which is something single classes can't do. The only way to solve that problem is to make passives less good for multiclass characters, but that means taking out any that cause step change effects, or putting them so late in the progression trees that multiclass characters functionally can't take them.


    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:




    Consider what is in my opinion the best melee the Paladin/Berserker. They will always have carnage and the +20 defensive boost to everything that Paladins have. They will always have Frenzy and Flames of Devotion. They will have all of this at 2nd level.  This gets them extra damage, extra penetration, fire lash, extra attack speed, extra health, and better defensive boosts than four separate abilities would yield for defense, plus their attacks become AoE due to Carnage.


    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.)

  17. 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  :)

    • Like 1
  18. I don't have a philosophical objection to them. I have a practical one. (But yes, I'd generally prefer a classless system too.) My issue is generally that I can't see how you can balance the power of passives across multi/single classes. Passives are (arguably) the most powerful abilities on the tree, and multis get full progression in both classes passives. And as many of them represent step changes, you can't even scale them with power level - partial downgrading of afflications doesn't make sense. Even if the level 8/9 spells are amazing, for most of the game they won't have them, single classes surely won't be able to make up the difference that multis get through their passives (and that's putting aside that ranger pets and summoned weapons, and possibly other things I don't know about, don't depend on power level, making multis built around those concepts even more broken).


    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.

  19. Cipher is not even the best multiclass combo however with biting whip you do 40% extra damage. This means you need to reduce active abilities by 28% just to bring them down to the same level. Given you'll do 140% damage on an auto attack we might find some abilities do a lower DPS. (At this point the Multiclass has access to only 2 additional tiers)


    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%.

  20. i think that in addition to make power level matter much more for speels and ability ( typically spell acuracy and damage need to scale much more with power ) you also need to modify level zero abilities and bonus and make them scale with power. classes strength are too front loaded which makes passing up on multi classing bonuses too much of a sacrifice.


    for instance sneak attack could be 30% damage +5% per power level, paladin deep faith could be 10 +1 per power level....


    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.

  21. To make all attributes useful you should have every attribute giving offensive bonuses to all classes. An idea would be:

    MIG - 3% dmg

    DEX - 3% spd

    CON - 5% crit dmg

    PER - 1 acc

    INT - 5% graze to hit, AoE increase

    RES - 2% hit to crit, duration increase


    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.



    On the other hand, this offensiveness can be indirect. Let's take CON as example. If it gives "+4% hp base hp; +3% healing received" - it's defensive. But if there are:

    - weapons or modals, that are reducing your hp (like scepter's modal) - both hp and regeneration become a mean of offence.

    - or if there were spells that use your hp pool as resource, for example something like: "inflict to self and all surround enemies damage equal to 25% of your max hp" or "drain the target for 6% of your max health pool per second" - hp again would be helping with dealing damage. Additionally it could enable a new way to play a class: drain-tanking. (makes me think of Concelhaut by the way)



    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...