Jump to content

Jon of the Wired

Members
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jon of the Wired

  1. Yeah, this idea has been discussed several times on the board already. I agree with you that's it's probably the ideal way of implementing turn-based combat for Deadfire (certainly better than the existing system, and I think also better than an action point based system). It's actually so ideal that when I heard they were doing a turn-based mode I just assumed that's how they would do it, and was pretty surprised when it wasn't. In any event, the next big patch is probably going to be out in a few days, and I expect that will include any major changes they're going to make to the turn-ba
  2. Yeah, it's a bit perplexing. When I first saw the announcement that a TB mode was being added I assumed they were going with an FF X style system because I couldn't think of any other way to preserve the action speed / recovery economy. I was surprised when the beta came out to find that they just... didn't preserve it (well, nominally they did, but Initiative is weak enough that you don't have to care about it). I never considered that possibility because action speed seems so critical to PoE's mechanical identity that I assumed any system that didn't centre it would be a non-starter. I h
  3. There is a difference though. Say for instance a 6 in Dex gets you one attack, 12 gets you 2 and 18 gets you 3 attacks. Now any Dex from 7-11 and 13-17 is a waste of points since it gets you nothing tangible. Currently in RTwP every single point of Dex does something. With multiple attacks per action it creates the break points issue people have been mentioning. Plus multiple attacks in a single action begins to throw the action economy out of whack if you can exploit it. I meant that in an FF X style roundless TB mode (which doesn't suffer from the problem you're describing) the balance would
  4. Yeah, as others have said, the assumption is that once you get rid of rounds, everything to do with time is now measured in Initiative ticks. That includes effect durations (which means Intellect now works properly again) and also when DoTs go off (so they would be on their own Initiative, not bound to when the character takes actions, just like in RTwP). This shouldn't cause any balance problems (again, because it's really just exactly how things worked in RTwP) but it may be a bit of a challenge communicate what's happening to the player.
  5. The balance in an FF X style roundless TB mode would be the same as in RTwP mode, though (including movement, which would now cost initiative), so I don't think that's a major concern. On the other hand, having action speed only affect basic attacks would significantly alter the balance between casters and non-casters, for example.
  6. Once you get rid of rounds, balancing the action economy is just a matter of tuning action speed bonuses, possibly at a global level. As long as there's one action per round action speed is too weak to be a useful balancing factor, so you need to start messing with damage values and who knows what else.
  7. Dexterity granting additional standard attacks would violate one of the design goals for Attributes in PoE, which is to avoid hard breakpoints. If Dexterity granted additional attacks there would only be a few values of Dex where your number of attacks actually changed, and setting Dex to any other value would be a newb-trap.
  8. After playing (and enjoying) a lot of the turn based combat, I agree that this would be the way to go. The current TB system is a lot of fun, but the damage to the game balance and build diversity is significant. I also think that action speed is too important to the mechanical identity of PoE to be devalued the way it is in the current TB mode. I think a FFX (or FFTA) style TB mode without rounds would feel more like PoE than the current system does. What concerns me, though, is that it's such an obvious idea that I wonder if they didn't already try it and discard it. It's not clear to me
  9. So, I've noticed that there's two different notations for damage bonuses. Some damage bonuses (like the bonus from Might, or Burning Lash) are written as "+N% Damage" (e.g. +20% Damage, +50% Damage) and others (like the bonus from weapon quality and many talents and abilities) are written as "xN Damage" (e.g. x1.2 Damage, x2.0 Damage). The first notation implies the bonus is additive and the second implies it's multiplicative, which has a significant impact on what the bonus means. Are there really two different kinds of damage bonuses, one additive and the other multiplicative? If so, how
  10. To be fair, according to my model, all you have to do to give breastplates a viable niche is change the -40% recovery penalty to a -35% recovery penalty. It's not exactly a massive overhaul.
  11. Interesting. It looks like that model is assuming a 1:1 ratio of dps to tanks, does it change any if you assume that there are 2 or 3 dps'ers per tank? Also I don't think it changes anything, but those deflection values seem a little odd. 46 seems a little optimistic for dps (the bb fighter has 38 at level 5) and 64 seems a little low for a tank (bb fighter does have 67 with a shield and defender activated, but he's missing 20 points of deflection he could have from better talents and another ~18 from stats). And yeah, there's some really neat looking armors inbetween plate and padde
  12. So, I built a much more complete and accurate model of when it's appropriate to wear different armors. It models a tank and a DPSer at around level 5 wearing Fine armor fighting lions. It doesn't do much to change the conclusions from my earlier calculation, though. Clothing is (obviously) the best armor for ranged attackers, plate is best for tanks, and there is a good argument for putting melee DPSers in padded armor. Unfortunately, the model also shows that breastplates (and presumably other medium armor) is completely useless. This saddens me, because I think it's the best looking armor in
  13. So, I did some quick calculations, and at least for 5th level characters fighting lions, if your tank is > 80% effective (that is, your tank is getting hit 80% of the time, and 20% of the time your DPSer is getting hit) then you're better off wearing clothing than armor. Between 80% and 40%, light armor beats medium armor, and under 40% tank effectiveness, you're better off in medium armor. This is a very rough estimate, and the calculations are pretty sensitive to a number of variables (particularly how much damage your tank takes from attacks) but it seems to generally point to the id
  14. I'm not sure the DPS penalty is that high. It's something like -12% for padded armor, and -25% for a breastplate. That's a fair amount, but it's not apocalyptic (for padded, anyway) and classes you're likely to use for melee DPS all have higher endurance than the wizard, so they benefit more from DR.
  15. It's an argument whether or not there are any numbers behind it. But I have this chart kicking around from the last version, and I like charts, so here, enjoy this chart. Paladins are assumed to have 5 deflection and 3 DR over fighters. Slapping the heaviest armor in the game on a wizard increases the average attacks until they die from 2.3 to 3.2. Putting plate on a tanky fighter increases their lifespan from 23 swipes to 58 swipes. Now, I'm sure you're going to say, but what about other creatures. And let me assure you, the shape doesn't change much for other creatures. B
  16. Sure, that is my usual strategy. I don't think the AI is nearly aggressive enough about attacking your back-line, but I have had beetles tunnel past my front-line, and enemy casters hit everyone with AoEs. In unfamiliar areas, you can also get adds coming in from unexpected directions. Melee DPS characters are attacked more often, and are more likely to be worth putting in armor. Without some numbers behind it, that's just not an argument. How minor a survivability boost? How large an amount of damage?
  17. Everyone in this thread is taking it as given that light and medium armour are dominated by clothing and heavy armour, but no one has actually demonstrated that. Combat can be viewed as an optimization problem where you are attempting to maximize the value of (damage done to enemies) / (per-rest resources consumed). Wearing light or medium armor reduces damage output, but it also reduces consumption of a per-rest resource (Health), so it's only obvious that light and medium armor are worse for non-tanks than clothing if you're assuming that only your tanks are ever damaged. In my experienc
  18. So does PoE have less attacks. If you are running back you are not getting most DPS as you have slower recovery times. And in 5e you can move and do all attacks. And you could do so in 2e as well (which IE games are based on). In neither 5e or 2e could you kite, however. In either system, the pursuer can move twice as fast as a character moving and shooting, and once the pursuer catches the kiting character, the kiting character is screwed. They can either run, or move and shoot, at which point they provoke an attack of opportunity (rules for that were in 2e, though under a different na
  19. So does PoE have less attacks. If you are running back you are not getting most DPS as you have slower recovery times. And in 5e you can move and do all attacks. And you could do so in 2e as well (which IE games are based on). In neither 5e or 2e could you kite, however. In either system, the pursuer can move twice as fast as a character moving and shooting, and once the pursuer catches the kiting character, the kiting character is screwed. They can either run, or move and shoot, at which point they provoke an attack of opportunity (rules for that were in 2e, though under a different
  20. It's not a full solution to kiting, but it does discourage kiting in some circumstances. Specifically, it discourages kiting with a character that has already been engaged, because they would need to suffer a disengagement attack (or take some action to prevent one) before they can begin kiting. It doesn't help a melee character catch a kiting character in the first place, though, which is why it's not a full solution. I don't think there's any single mechanic that can solve kiting. Any solution has to be a combination of mechanics, AI, and encounter design.
  21. Retreating isn't the only reason to disengage, though, you may also be trying to get to a squishier target.
  22. On further thought, I think bonuses for attacks from behind are actually not great either conceptually or practically. On a conceptual level, presumably you move more slowly near melee characters because you're being forced to be concerned more with your personal safety than moving as quickly as possible. If that's the case, it doesn't make that much sense to both be moving slowly, and suffer defense penalties (i.e., moving slowly is the cost you're paying to not be extra vulnerable to attacks). Practically, it's probably best to only have one type penalty, instead of just stacking on more and
  23. I think that could work, and I would be interested in trying it out (maybe in combination with bonuses on attacks against enemies facing away from you).
  24. Sure but it's what I would like to see in the game at a bare minimum. Encounter design can also make up for AI deficiency. The Encounter design in the beta isn't great, but at least Adra beetles have a couple of ranged attacks now. Sure, but I have to assume that if all the enemies in IWD:HoW were actively trying to get to your backline characters (using the highest-AC targeting clause, lets say), that would dramatically change the feel of the game when compared to its current state, where most enemies are content to waste time attacking people in plate armor. I don't think IWD:HoW giv
×
×
  • Create New...