Matt516

Well, Josh said on Friday that they'd already been talking about doing some of the things we suggested, so the time bit might not be as big a problem. As for the others (implementing Deflection was the most major thing we suggested that they weren't already considering), Josh seemed rather receptive to it, and it shouldn't take too much time to implement. Since they're completely restructuring the attribute system anyway (making 10 the "0 point", with penalties below it and boni above it), I'd imagine the overhead for implementing Deflection wouldn't be a big deal to add on top of that. I could be wrong though. Might be that they never intended those changes to come with this next patch anyway. We'll see.

Problem with this as I see it is that DEX and PER are now OP compared to the others because they have 2 very impactful (what I called "primary") stats attached to them in addition to the passive defenses all the attributes have. If you remove the passive defenses from all the attributes (as all 3 are pretty much equal in power so they cancel out for balance purposes), what you get is this: Might - damage & healing Dexterity - action speed, deflection Constitution - health & endurance Perception - accuracy, deflection Intellect - AoE size, ability duration(debuffs) Resolve - concentration, ability duration(buffs) If we compare these to the SM system and to Josh's second system, we see that: Might and Constitution are unchanged, Intellect and Resolve have been nerfed, and Perception and Dexterity have been buffed. Now I won't claim that the SM system or Josh's second system were perfectly balanced - but based on what analysis we have done I think they were fairly close. This system makes Perception and Dexterity absolute must-picks, Intellect useless for pretty much anyone other than a dedicated debuffer, and Resolve a pretty weak pick as well for anyone who doesn't rely heavily on buffs (since Concentration is nice but not probably as good as the other combat stats). Now, the numbers on Might and Constitution could be upped to compensate, but the issues with Intellect and Resolve would be systemic and unfixable with simple numbers tweaks. In summary, I think they're interesting ideas, but this system would ultimately fail the "No dump stats" and "All attributes are useful in some way for every class" design goals set out by Josh Sawyer for his attribute system.

While I'm excited to see a new version ASAP, I would encourage them to not put it out until it's ready. If some of the new changes they're implementing (i.e. to attributes ) introduce a few new bugs that are major in effect but minor in "fixing" difficulty, I'd prefer that they're squished before release of the new Beta. That way the next phase of testing is that much more productive.

Alternatively, 6 Barbarians, each with completely maxed out Might, Dexterity (in Josh's new system that gives attack speed), Perception (or wherever Accuracy ends up), and the rest in Intellect. 3 for Constitution and Resolve.

Fantastic diagram! :D Only suggestions I'd have would be: A) Change Accuracy and Deflection lines to "+1" and solid lines because they aren't actually percentage increases but integer increases. B) If you want, you could put "+1.5" on the "saving throw" defenses as that's the amount of increase (also integer). C) The level up values (if you care to put them in) are +3 to all defenses and to Accuracy per lvl above lvl 1. Health/Stamina are dependent on class, obviously. But really, this is awesome! Thanks a bunch for putting them together. You rock.

I've put together a summary of all the attribute design ideas put forth so far in this thread for easy comparison/review for people who are just getting here. Where a poster was not specific or gave incomplete information, I've put parentheses around what I think they would've put in the incomplete information sections. I made an exception for the "saving throw" defenses, which hardly anyone (including Sensuki and I) mentioned so I just put them without parentheses since I assumed if they weren't mentioned they were staying the same. I've also put together a quick list of the tweaks and considerations that (IMHO) need to happen in order to fix the attribute system one way or the other (assuming no huge mechanics changes that render the whole thing moot). This is based primarily off of the analysis done in our paper, and informed by the awesome discussion that's taken place in this thread. Here they are: Might and Constitution shouldn't have their boni split off to other attributes b/c they're already thematically and mechanically balanced Accuracy, Deflection, Duration, and Action Speed are "primary" boni and shouldn't be paired with any other "primary" boni Of those 4, Deflection is probably the weakest of the bunch AoE, Interrupt, and Concentration are "secondary" boni and should therefore be paired with the "primary" boni Of those 3, Concentration is the strongest - therefore pairing it with Deflection makes the most sense Due to the dependency of Interrupt on Accuracy, it should be with Accuracy if it is kept in as a stat Regarding the "no two primary attributes together" goal and my pg 20 suggestion: see post #387 on page 20 And lastly, here's the same table again, but with the solutions that (IMHO) would result in a well-balanced system (basically the solutions that agree with the list above) highlighted: Keep the ideas flowing, guys and gals. Someone let me know if I accidentally misrepresented an idea and I'll fix it. EDIT: Just wanted to point out in advance that just because I didn't highlight an idea in the second table doesn't mean I think it's bad - just that it wouldn't be completely balanced for one reason or another. This is one guy's opinion, and I'm not trying to tear anyone else's ideas down. If I had I wouldn't have included every single suggestion I could find. EDIT 2: After some reflection, I think I should've highlighted your last suggestion as well, 4ward. Sorry about that. Will fix when I get home if I can still edit, but it probably won't let me. Obsidian Folks, if you're coming in at this point of the thread, this should give you a good idea of the systems that have been proposed thus far. There's also been lots of great mechanics discussion that I can't capture in the table though, so I'd encourage you to read it if you can.

In most cases. There will be some cases in which the increased AoE will just be better, so I don't think claiming that smart play will always account for it would be quite fair.

My bad - I was talking about taking this a step further and extending the friendly region into the original AoE.

Either I don't understand what Josh Sawyer is talking about or you don't. Nothing about the risk/reward of the base AoE (in this example, a fireball) changes. The friendly-fire AoE of fireball will be the same size in an 18-int will be the same as a 3-int wizard. The tactical considerations are unchanged. My understanding of Sawyer's plan is to make it so that the 18-int wizard is not punished for investing in an attribute by making it more difficult for him to utilize fireball than a 3-Int wizard. Also, no offense intended, but I a lot of the reticence to this idea comes more from guttural nostalgia than from anything else. If part of your AoE only hits ennemies, you negate the usual trade off of fireballs. "if I want to hit an ennemy, I will hit my frontline too". In fact, the base AoE (wich is friendly fire) becomes irrelevant because you won't use it anymore. You will always position your spells so as to hit with the outer ring only. You don't have to take risks anymore by hitting your own troops (low risks) but you continue to deal massive damage (high reward). Beat me to it! Yeah, the idea is that if the fringe AoE is large enough, you can basically start using only the fringe AoE. This could be mitigated by making the AoE increase small. Another interesting option could be to just embrace this and roll with it as a feature. Maybe instead of increasing AoEs, the AoE stays the same (or increases less), but increasing portions of it are non-friendly fire. Representing the caster becoming better and better at controlling his/her spells to selectively avoid allies. Just an idea.

That's a bit patronizing - different games demand different types of UI. You wouldn't call a Civ V player casual because they don't use half of the menus, would you? Not that they don't need to get the visual feedback working - they do. But your suggestion that using a UI is somehow "casual" just doesn't make sense. Don't you prefer the solid background UI? Does that make you more casual than someone who uses the minimalist UI? Not that that statement makes any sense... But yours doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. xD

Yup, +15 Accuracy (which is about +18% damage, so not at all insignificant).

I can't say I like either of those most recent suggestions because IMO there is really no way for AoE to carry an attribute on its own. It's simply not going to be universally applicable enough or strong enough to meet either of those two primary design goals we're shooting for (no dump stats and every stat worthwhile for every class in some way). The second one is basically Sawyer's idea for attribute changes, if I understood his posts right. Well apart from the removal of double defense stats, that's just me, but I think it needs to happen. Double defense stats just seem silly to me and hard to balance. By double defense stats I mean fortitude, reflexes and will saves on 2 different attributes. I don't disagree with you, but I think it could be made to work. The difference is that you've removed the standard 1.5 of X non-Deflection defense that every attribute gets. Since all attributes get that bonus in the current and our proposed system, we don't really have to consider it when balancing them - assuming those 3 defenses are roughly equally targeted, those boni cancel out from a balance perspective. But if you remove that standard, you have to look at everything each attribute provides. Intellect providing +1 Deflection, +5% AoE, but not +1.5 Will, makes it woefully underpowered compared to the others. +1 Deflection on its own is already slightly weaker than +1 Accuracy, +2% damage, 2% Health/Stamina, +5% Duration, and +2% Action Speed. Pairing it with AoE helps, but only if the other "primary" attribute boni (IMO the ones I just listed) aren't paired with anything stronger than AoE. Which, in both our proposed and Josh's proposed system, they wouldn't be. In the system you proposed, many of them are paired with other defenses.

Well that's why I had it in quotes, because it's not really cheating in a SP game... that doesn't mean the game should be designed with easily exploitable mechanics like stat rerolling though. There should be a clear line between playing the game by its rules and changing the rules to suit your own liking (even though there's nothing wrong with doing that). Which is why I would gladly support a mod that implemented BG style rolling for attributes, but not support it as a default game system.

Ultimately, with the current system, anyone who wants to generate a random character can do so with their own dice. Anyone who would rather pick their attributes doesn't have to feel like they need to spend a whole bunch of time rerolling. So that's why I like the current system - it works for both groups of people. As for an increasing-cost point buy system, I have to confess I'm not a fan. PoE's attribute system already somewhat incentivizes raising related stats equally, like Might and Accuracy, due to the way they benefit from the current value of the other. A system like this would mean that in most cases, a more average build with points spread out very equally will be much stronger than a build that focuses on a few attributes. All it would really do is decrease the variety "good" builds out there, and where's the fun in that? EDIT: The difficulty settings bit cam also be implemented in the current system though. That is a nice suggestion.

I'm sure he can access the forum itself. I think he means he can't access his dev account. Which is certainly a possibility. Either way - we know Josh doesn't post on the forums over the weekend, the reason why is pretty much immaterial. He'll get back to it when work/personal schedule allows him to. In the meantime, what we can do is focus on making sure that when he does come back to it, there are a ton of really great ideas and feedback in the thread for him and the design team to absorb.

Even then, since chargen is at the start of the game people would just keep starting over. It doesn't fix the system, just makes it less convenient for those who want to "cheat" it. (cheat in quotes because it's a SP game)

I can't say I like either of those most recent suggestions because IMO there is really no way for AoE to carry an attribute on its own. It's simply not going to be universally applicable enough or strong enough to meet either of those two primary design goals we're shooting for (no dump stats and every stat worthwhile for every class in some way).

I'd use one like Rumsteak's just for fun - but it's still point buy at the core (which I prefer).

*snip* If you like it, you should quote the suggestion itself as well so skimmers are more likely to see it.

He posted here on Friday - has probably been enjoying his weekend off and I don't blame him haha. I hope he revisits the thread on Monday though - it'd be a good use of his time as a designer IMO as this thread has perhaps the most productive design discussion of any thread I've yet seen on this forum. Agreed on Concentration not being the sole benefit of an attribute. It's too weak, and making it strong enough to compete on its own by making Interrupts more severe or more common would just make the Interrupt system too impactful IMO.

Boorbarian for teh wiiiin!!!

Well, as Fearabbit pointed out, Deflection is really not all that distinct from the other 3 Defenses (which are already governed by various other attributes at a rate of +1.5 per point at the moment). It is probably still the most targeted, but that's accounted for by the fact that it's easier to increase via shields and such. This change puts Deflection on par with the other defensive statistics by making each one of them have a single attribute that raises them, with Resolve raising all 4 of them. So the surrounding situation has changed, and I don't think the "OP" argument from before is quite as valid now. Perception would be a crazy good attribute for frontliners though - Constitution might need a boost to 3% so its still the better defensive attribute. Maybe not though as it affects all defenses, so in that way is basically a mirror for Resolve (in this new idea).

It's not a flaw I created. The elegance we spoke about was two offensive, two defensive and two universal attributes. We do not count what the attributes give to the minor defenses in that assessment. It is a flaw you created when you took Deflection into the mix. (A move that I approve of, just to make that clear.) They're not "minor defenses", they're defenses, plain and simple. Three of them. Before, there was symmetry, then you included the fourth defense without re-arranging the others, and now there is no symmetry anymore. And I find your notion that Deflection is more important than the other defenses very worrying, because unlike any of the other changes, you don't back it up with evidence. You're saying that physical damage happens more frequently, but I know that you know the math behind this kind of stuff, so you should know how simplified that argument is and how many things you are ignoring. Saying that Will and Reflex saves are less important than Deflection saves is saying that spellcasters are useless. It's also ignoring the numbers in the calculations. If an attribute gave you enough Will to make you immune against magic, that would be useful as hell. In any case. One possible solution would be to put all defenses into Resolve. All four of them. Think about it. It's the exact same thing that was done for damage, accuracy, AoE and duration... it was de-coupled from the kind of effect it had. All that mattered was its primary function, and that's what the attribute affected. Simple and symmetrical. While there is a certain asymmetry in how the defenses are raised in our system, it's worse in the original system because there's no way to raise Deflection at all. And while it is kind of odd, I don't think it's really enough of a problem to merit making major changes, though I'd be up for hearing suggestions. All 4 defenses in Resolve? Well... I see your point about it being similar to the other attributes in that the attribute effect is de-coupled from the kind of effect. That said, I kind of like that different characters have different strengths and weaknesses though. Under that suggestion, you might as well have only 1 defense (not entirely because of defense buffs/debuffs, but hopefully you get the point). In the current system, a character could be abnormally resistant to AoE attacks (Ref) or to poison (Fort), but be easy to hit with mental magic. This change would greatly decrease that flexibility. It should also be mentioned that this change would significantly nerf all the other attributes. Deflection alone (or even with AoE) might not be enough to compete with the other stats (though I think its close), but all defenses on one attribute would be overpowered, especially considering the others being decreased. May I make an alternate suggestion? (albeit one I still rank below leaving defenses as is ) I could get behind something like +1 in each defense for Resolve, then +1 in a selected defense for each the other attributes not counting Might. So the defenses distribution could look something like this (with other effects in parentheses): Might: no defenses (+2% damage) Constitution: +1 Fortitude (+2% health/stamina) Dexterity: +1 Reflexes (+2% action speed) Intellect: +1 Will (+5% AoE/Duration) Perception: +1 Deflection (+1 Accuracy, maybe +1% Interrupt) Resolve: +1 to all 4 defenses, maybe even +1.5 if we want to get crazy, or maybe even a percentage bonus! (+1% Concentration) ^ dis ees much better in my opinion. Could also change the +2%s to +3%s, and the +1 Accuracy to +2 for a start in giving attributes more impact.

They could probably be a bit more impactful (off the top of my head, 3% for the percentages that are 2% and +2 for the stats that are +1 would be a good starting point), but I think we should focus on getting the effects of the stats figured out first. Balancing numbers is the easiest to iterate, while major design changes are hard.

I'd encourage everyone who's finding the complexity of the math in our paper troubling not to worry - as Josh mentioned in the screenshot that's been posted a few times, this kind of analysis only needs to be done by the designers. The reason the designers do this analysis is so when you're creating your character, you can do it by "feel" if you want and you won't accidentally screw up due to some attributes being much stronger than others. Don't be discouraged by the complicated analysis Sensuki and I performed - even the simplest systems can be analyzed to death, and people like me who love analysis will do it if you turn them loose. If analysis isn't your thing though, don't worry about it. Badly designed systems require the players to have an intimate knowledge of the maths in order to make a proper build. Well designed systems that have been analyzed and properly balanced in advance don't. We're doing the analysis so you won't have to.