Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'balance'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Obsidian Community
    • Obsidian General
    • Computer and Console
    • Developers' Corner
    • Pen-and-Paper Gaming
    • Skeeter's Junkyard
    • Way Off-Topic
  • Pentiment
    • Pentiment: Announcements & News
    • Pentiment: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
    • Pentiment: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pentiment: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
  • The Outer Worlds 2
    • The Outer Worlds 2 Speculation
  • Avowed
    • Avowed Speculation
  • Grounded
    • Grounded: Announcements & News
    • Grounded: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
    • Grounded: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Grounded: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
  • The Outer Worlds
    • The Outer Worlds: Announcements & News
    • The Outer Worlds: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
    • The Outer Worlds: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
    • The Outer Worlds: Character Builds & Strategies (Spoiler Warning!)
    • The Outer Worlds: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
  • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Announcements & News
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Characters Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
  • Pathfinder
    • Pathfinder Adventures: Announcements & News
    • Pathfinder Adventures: General Discussion (No Spoilers!)
    • Pathfinder Adventures: Characters Builds & Strategies (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pathfinder Adventures: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
  • Pillars of Eternity
    • Pillars of Eternity: Announcements & News
    • Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
    • Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity: Characters Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)
    • Pillars of Eternity: Backer Beta
  • Pillars of Eternity: Lords of the Eastern Reach
    • Lords of the Eastern Reach: Announcements & News
    • Lords of the Eastern Reach: Speculation & Discussion
    • Lords of the Eastern Reach: Kickstarter Q&A
  • Legacy (General Discussion)
    • Alpha Protocol
    • Dungeon Siege III
    • Neverwinter Nights 2
    • South Park
    • Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords
  • Legacy (Archives)
    • Alpha Protocol
    • Armored Warfare
    • Dungeon Siege III
    • Fallout: New Vegas
    • Neverwinter Nights 2
    • South Park
    • Tyranny

Blogs

  • Chris Avellone's Blog
  • Neverwinter Nights 2 Blog
  • Joshin' Around!
  • Adam Brennecke's Blog
  • Chapmania
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Site Blog
  • Pillars of Eternity Support Blog
  • Pathfinder Adventures Dev Blogs
  • Obsidian Marketing and Market Research Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


MSN


Skype


Jabber


Yahoo


Website URL


Location


Xbox Gamertag


PSN Online ID


Steam


Interests

  1. Deflection stacking, deflection stacking all the way. A character with very high Deflection enjoys many advantages. He lasts very long in combat, and being heavily outnumbered and surrounded doesn't bother him that much, because it doesn't make him easier to hit. Deflection also avoids many attacks altogether (Knocknown, poison, disease as secondary effects). I don't read about DR stacking on this forum nearly as often. Don't you think DR stacking is too weak ? DR comes with more limits, for example at least 20% damage always goes through. Each attack always deals damage no matter how thick your armor. Unless it doesn't hit at all. Games like DCSS have limits on similar mechanics, such as shield parry. Each subsequent attack has a higher chance to hit. In PoE terms, it could be that when you are attacked, you get -5 to Deflection for 1 second (STACKS).
  2. Ignoring the unique models, currently Battle axes are worse than sabres in the vast variety of applications ( turning the hit resolution -0.5,0,0.5 additive , even if the ingame info still calls them "multipliers" was a big nerf to those weapon types ) ...Comparing with sabres because they are both locked into slashing damage type.. that +0.5 bonus to crit "multiplier" translates into + ((11+16)/2)*0.5 = 6.75 average damage on crits .. Sabres will thus outdamage battle axes EVEN ON CRITICAL HITS once the sum of damage multipliers goes above 6.75 / (( 13+19-11-16)/2) = 2.7 .. Rogues (best crit melee race - reckless attack accuracy bonus, you need to use them on a high accuracy class to get those crits) can get this at level 3 .. 1+ 0.15 (fine weapons) + 0.3 (20 might) + 0.2 (reckless) + 0.5 (sneak) + 0.5 (crit) .. Past level 2 sabre can outdamage battle axe in all situations on Rogue .. (sneak is not always on but with good micro it should be close) .. Oh - and there is at least a unique sabre with +0.5 crit "multiplier" (salt on the wound and set in on fire) Battle axes need some love .. Yes investing in Weapon Focus Knight also grants swords for flexibility (assuming dual wield) , but how many weapons can you realistically afford to buy/enchant in a game melee focused team (without console/cheats) ? they went quite a distance trying to add different whistles and bells to each weapon type to differentiate each other .. Battle axes as original designed (with hit resolution as multiplier) had their niche as "the crit" weapons .. Right now they (BAs) are virtually the same as sabres in every way only, they do less damage .. That goes against the perceived design goal of making each weapon group "unique/different" gameplay/mechanics wise (I'm not talking animations/color/sparkly effects) ..
  3. Difficulty: I'm sure that some of these suggestions will be fairly contentious, however, I beat the game on PotD using only story NPCs, didn't use figurines/potions/scrolls/traps, had expert mode on, and found it to be more of a 'hard' mode (hard mode was much too easy) than a ridiculous, unfair challenge. I even ended up using Cheat Engine to drastically reduce my party's experience on multiple occasions. If they're too much for expert mode/PotD, maybe they could be implemented, with others, into an even higher difficulty mode for the expansion/sequel, 'Way of the Grognard'? -Only one figurine should be capable of being used at a time (maybe even only one total per battle), not one per character. When every PC can use a figurine simultaneously and some figurines summon multiple creatures, it's equivalent to an instant win button (to a game-breakingly absurd extent in the early/mid game) that completely trivializes any fight in the game. -Characters should be granted a brief period where they have an increased resistance to whatever hostile effect just ended. When currently afflicted with a hostile effect, characters should also have an increased resistance—perhaps even total immunity—to that same effect. The capability to effortlessly resolve a significant percentage of the combat in the game by simply stun-locking enemies indefinitely at a choke point using mental binding (a 2nd level spell!), and with only one cipher in the party to boot, is ridiculous. -The total absence of immunities leads to numerous preposterous in-game scenarios. For example, blights (elementals) take damage from their respective elements; they shouldn't just have a total immunity, they should actually be healed by attacks featuring their respective elements. Oozes can be knocked prone. How do you knock a gelatinous mass on its back... where is its back for that matter? Spectral enemies that hover above the ground can slip on a 'slick, oil-like substance' that 'coats the ground'. Flying enemies are also vulnerable to being knocked down by an oily, ground-based attack. Enemies without eyes can be blinded... clearly wizards are some sort of inverse-Jesus. This a wide-ranging problem that contributes to the bland uniformity that defines much of the combat and is in no way limited to the handful of examples listed above. -Figurines should be single use items, not one use per rest. A few more figurines could be introduced into the world to compensate for this. It would be even more interesting if some figurines summoned hostile creatures or ones that turned on the summoner once the enemies were slain. Hell, there could even be one that summoned a creature/person that gave a quest to slay the person who imprisoned them in the figurine. -Enemy humanoids should use potions/scrolls/figurines and intelligent (sentient beings) ranged/spell casting enemies should ruthlessly target the player's casters/squishies, forcing the player to disable them or immediately burst them down. -If PCs can have, at a minimum, two weapon sets, why can't other humanoids? If enemies were given alternative methods to attack—be it ranged or melee with extended reach—the common indoor tactic of blocking a doorway with your tank becomes a lot less OP and makes for far more interesting and dynamic encounters. The engagement tanking cluster**** that most fights occurring in the open devolve into would also be mitigated to a large extent by such a change. Of course, this is contingent upon a semi-decent AI being implemented into the game. -Failing a scripted interaction's option should always have some contextual punishment, on many occasions actions were attempted and failed, yet no ill effects resulted from those failures. For example, if a character attempts to climb up to a window via vines—instead of immediately using a grappling hook—and fails, falling to the ground in the process, they should have a twisted ankle debuff (or something similar) until they rest. If a character attempts to push some rocks out of the way—instead of immediately using a hammer and chisel—but isn't strong enough, they should get a sprained back debuff or something similar. -Bounty experience should be 1/5 of what it currently is... if not less. Side quests in general seem to grant too much experience. This seems to be a problem inherent in the amount of experience required to level up... the curve is much too gentle from around level 3 onward. It honestly feels like there is enough experience in this game to level two full parties. -Bestiary grants too much experience, as the player is over leveled quite quickly after reaching the first major city without even doing a certain keep or exploring a certain multilevel dungeon. It really seems like the side quest exp wasn't reduced once the bestiary exp was tacked on at the end of development. At the very least, expert mode and/or PotD should reduce—if not remove—bestiary experience. Another possible solution is to offer bestiary experience only for enemy archetypes instead of every individual variant of said archetype. -Chests/traps shouldn't grant experience. The reward for opening a chest is whatever is inside of it; the reward for disarming a trap is the removal of a dangerous obstacle. Reclaiming traps should be a 50% chance at the same level of mechanics and +/-10% per level above or below. -The endurance regenerated after a battle should be taken from the health of that character, with the caveat that the total health couldn't go below 1hp. This would make the 2 camping supply limit on PotD actually impactful. It would also make potion/scroll use important, if not necessary, in certain sections of the game. -Swapping weapons shouldn't be instant; it's too easy when you can equip a caster with a hatchet and a large shield then just immediately switch to that set when anything gets within striking distance, gaining an immediate and significant bonus to deflection. When wizards have multiple spells that buff deflection and are not instantaneous, like switching weapon-sets is, it seems like weapon switching isn't working as intended. By making weapon switching take some time it also allows a talent to be introduced, making it faster, or even instantaneous, further diversifying meaningful build options. *Mild Early Game Spoilers* -An enemy should only be capable of being charmed once per encounter and should go hostile immediately upon taking damage from the player. -Enemies shouldn't immediately attack their charmed allies if they have other available targets. Currently enemies will frequently immediately target—and even chase (eliciting engagement attacks in the process!)—a charmed ally of theirs, completely ignoring what or whomever they were just fighting. -Resting bonuses should only last until the next rest, not until they are replaced by another bonus. I suspect this to be a bug since it occurs sporadically. -Great sword needs to be buffed as choosing the estoc is currently a no-brainer. -Enemies 'leashing' leads to some very exploitative scenarios and thus should be removed. -Dunryd Psion hireling is garbage: 100cp per day and -2/+2... why would anyone hire it? Brutish Warrior is +3/+2 and 50cp per day for comparison. *Mild Act 2 Spoiler* -The 'Overbearing' enchantment should have its prone duration halved... a buffed (or even unbuffed) carnage barbarian with high intelligence is currently too powerful when using weapons with it. -Pale Elf's Burn and Freeze DR should be reduced to +5 from +10.
  4. Itumaak (and I assume the other animals) seem to have the equivalent of 0 athletic skills and gets fatigued extremely easily. My lvl 9 party has a minimum of 3 athletics and after a few fights none of my party is tired while Itumaak suffers critical fatigue. Critical fatigue = -15 all defense, -30 accuracy, 50% max endurance It makes him useless in combat after a few fights and I suspect most people don't know this is happening because the only indicator is buried at the bottom of the hunters stat sheet. I even tried to cheat and give him 10 athletic skill and it didn't help. My guess is that animal_companions don't use skills and they don't ever increase their fatigue resistance.
  5. Could a first-level barbarian ability allowing a limited version of Carnage to be used at range (and possibly locking out melee Carnage) be balanced, or would it almost certainly be too good? I've been pondering the fact that barbarians are only usable at melee range. At first, it seemed like a natural consequence of what the class is all about, and I'm not sure it isn't, but I do wonder if there isn't room for ... I dunno, shooting through a guy and into another guy, or ricochets, or something like that. Barbarians have started to interest me in the same way that Ciphers interest me, and I'd like to know what other people think about this.
  6. I don't expect this game to be balanced league of legends style. I know there has always been unbalanced spells / abilities in IE games yet since they did so many good changes I wonder why was there no further insight into this mechanic. Just take a look at first level wizard spells. Fan of flames (40 -55) vs Reflex (+ 10 acc) [most of the time you can target a large group] Kalakoth's Sunless Grasp (19-28) and a -10 acc debuff. vs delfection ( + 10 acc) [ 1 target ] Minoletta Minor Missiles (30 -54) [1 target] vs deflection Discarding the -10 acc de buff which is minor anyway there is only one clear winner. Consider also that 2nd one has supper close range, you risk losing the wizard when casting. I know Fan of flames is theoretically more difficult to use but most of the time you won't have any problems. I don't see any logic in this design. Heavy aoe spells where you can target almost all enemies from an encounter should have lower damage than the spells that target 1 individual. Otherwise why bother? Spells that require the wizard to come close to the target should be greatly buffed so the risk / reward balance is satisfied. Edited: I forgot to add the the 2 latter spells are rolled vs deflection. Most of monsters have more deflection than reflex so they are harder to hit also. At least that's the case on PoD. I will repeat myself : I don't expect the devs to balance this game like league of legends but it doesn't make any sense to me.
  7. I know bug fixes (expecially gamebreaking ones) are the priority and i'm fine with that, but now that major bugs are fixed, i wonder if we'll see some heavy balance tweak like xp gain, enemies stats, difficulties rebalance and other stuff like this. There are a lot of propositive criticisms out there (both official and other forums) and i wonder if developers are looking at The game is really good and it has a solid base, so those things are mandatory for having a perfect product
  8. So. I see that there are a few balance changes going into the latest patch. Awesome. I'm a bit confused by the absence of the Estoc, though. It's the best 2H melee weapon in the game as far as damage goes - the only edge case in which it's not better is the case in which Piercing DR is more than 5 higher than Slashing (for the greatsword) or Slashing/Crushing (for the poleaxe). Or if the enemy has less than 5 DR, which, let's face it, is hardly ever going to happen. Am I the only one surprised that this weapon got left off the balance list? Am I greatly overvaluing it? I should note that the game is fantastic and this is really a nitpick. Not a huge deal - I just noticed that they were still making balance changes so I thought I'd ask if anyone else thinks our favorite piercing dynamo of a weapon is an obvious choice for a wee bit of nerfing. Maybe just tonight the DR reduction down to 4 or something. As is, I feel like an idiot if I give my 2H wielders anything but an Estoc.
  9. First, let me say how much I love this game. 9/10. If the few issues I have with it are mended, 10/10, and I will buy it for some friends. Total nostalgia and hommage to Baldur's Gate/Planescape series and the other strategy RPG's i grew up with and played relentlessly when I was a wee lad. However, one thing that i enjoyed more about those games that I am not enjoying so much in PoE is how you basically have two health bars. The endurance versus health is totally unecessary and adds a level of tedium for me that breaks the fun of the game. Having to camp way too much. Having to rest way too much, and no way to restore health by the priest/druid in the party casting a spell out of combat? Come on... Something easily done in Baldur's Gate that helped catalyze the gameplay rather than artificially extend it... Granted I am only about 10 hours into the game, but I am not enjoying having to rest and camp so much. I also don't like how easily spells are interrupted while trying to cast. I dislike how few spells you get to cast (using the tired method of spellcasting that even DnD abandoned, that of memorizing your spell "slots") before having to rest yet again. Wizard in the party is getting basically two-shot knocked out in some fights. Reduce the damage EVERYONE does across the board or increase everyone's health. Make fights last longer with everyone doing less damage to one another so that those lovely nice spells you coded into the game can actually get used, rather than just HEAL HEAL HEAL burn burn burn. Combats are either really fast, or not fast enough, or your wizard/priest/monk gets hammered and knocked out almost immediately before the (lets be honest) very slow cast time of some spells can go off. Fighter could use quite a few more class abilities as well. Maybe I am bad at the game and don't quite "get it" just yet, but I am playing on Normal and some fights are just impossibly tough, with 5 members in the party (namely the battles with the Priests in the Lord's castle --- their unavoidable spells hit entirely too hard in my opinion). Thanks for your time, guys, and thank you for giving us such an amazing game. It was well worth the money spent and I play it literally any moment I can spare.
  10. There's been some discussion of how some players prefer a game where it is possible to make bad character design decisions. Given that the game is being designed to avoid bad builds, would it make sense to add optional background picks that deliberately create an unbalanced character? For example, a background pick that starts with the PC receiving an initially negative reception from some key factions, but the pick is partly rewarded by gaining a specific bonus talent.
  11. Being a 2nd ed. AD&D player and fan of old-school crpgs I have to say that Classes weren't balanced, but also that this was not a bad thing. Most Classes were unique in their abilities and were able to act in a seperate ways. Why have balanced Classes in PoE ? The effort to do that may result in a quite similar 11. People who have tried the beta can share their exp & opinions about this.
  12. GOD DAMMIT. I had this really lengthy post and then I accidentally closed the window. Okay, second try. It's time to accept that Might is not accepted by many players. I love the idea of an attribute system where every attribute is useful for every class, but many people just don't like the idea that mental and physical power are based on the same attribute. And I can understand why. We want our fragile old wizards who deal tons of damage. We don't want "muscle wizards", no matter how wacky and fun that sounds. There is a disconnect between the Might attribute and our understanding of what attributes are supposed to represent in a character. Also, some of the attributes are somewhat unintuitive right now. And unbalanced. Resolve and Perception are dump stats right now. Resolve is a lot like Willpower, a mental intensity and presence. But nothing meaningful is tied to it. Perception is your awareness of surroundings, but same problem, it's only used for a mechanic that, while sounding interesting, is not very intuitive. Dexterity on the other hand seems bloated with all the things it governs. I want to change that, but I realize it won't be completely balanced. This is also something we'll just have to accept. Either we have a balanced system, or we have a slightly unbalanced system that makes people happy. My goal here is to make it just a tiny bit unbalanced while still making different builds possible and fun to play. What I'm NOT going to do is try and balance the system perfectly. Many people go ahead and say "okay so my system is Might gives 2% weapon damage, +1% to crits, blabla..." Going into detail like that won't solve anything. I want to propose a system where a fighter has reasons for different builds, and where a spellcaster has reasons for different builds. If there's a general reason for each class to put points into all attributes, then the system is balanceable. And that's all I'm aiming for right now. (By the way - the current system IS balanceable. It's just a question of making Interrupts and Concentration more important and Damage less important. The problem with the current system is not that it's unbalanced, it's that it's at its core not well-liked.) Even if the system turns out a bit unbalanced, the gameplay outside of combat takes care of that. Because seriously. The non-combat gameplay sounds awesome. There's lots of attribute checks etc and it sounds like roleplaying will be a blast. So even if combat isn't exactly balanced, I believe every character build will be interesting enough simply because of its non-combat possibilities that it warrants at least one playthrough. This is my main argument for why it's not so bad to have a slightly unbalanced system. If someone ignores all that content and only goes for min-maxing... well that really is his problem. With all that said... here's my proposal. Turn Might into Strength. Take out the Magic/Ability Damage. This instantly makes the attribute less interesting for many classes. Add Magic/Ability Damage to Resolve. As said, Resolve is basically Willpower. It's a perfect fit for Magic/Ability Damage and instantly makes this attribute important to a lot of classes - mostly to spellcasters however, for whom this will be the main attribute along with Intellect. Keep Intellect as AoE and Duration modifier. Resolve is a character's intensity, but intellect is his cleverness and allows them to shape their powers to their will. Makes perfect sense and is intuitive. Split Accuracy into Melee Accuracy and Ranged Accuracy. Leave Melee Accuracy in DEX, put Ranged Accuracy into PER. Perception is the attribute for keen sight and aiming. Ranged combat should benefit hugely from it, and this way it does. DEX was never a good fit for ranged accuracy. Add Ranged Reload Speed to DEX and Melee Crits to PER. DEX is however a perfect fit for reload speed, and we can use that to keep it interesting for ranged combatants. PER on the other hand allows melee combatants to see openings and use them. This makes it interesting for them without overpowering it for ranged combat. That's it. Now you might think "but now Strength is useless for spellcasters". But that's not true. First of all, there's the Healing which they can still benefit from. Then: Druids need it in their animal shape. Ciphers, Chanters and Monks need it anyway because part of their class is based upon attacking first and using powers later. And Wizards and Priests actually have spells at their disposal that are only useful when they have decent Strength. It's totally possible to play a Battlemage this way. But yeah, if you want to play a glass-cannon wizard, you can dump Strength now while still dealing tons of damage. (You won't be able to intimidate anyone anymore though.) And all in all, Strength might be a bit too unimportant for spellcasters now. But that's the price you have to pay to make the players happy, and I believe this solution is still pretty good. Hope some of the devs read and consider this. P.S. And no I don't want a discussion about whether the current system is intuitive or not. This is a proposal under the premise that the majority of players don't like the current system. If that's not true in your opinion, great, you can ignore this. If it is true, then this is the closest I can think of to keeping the current system while making the majority of players happy at the same time.
  13. Hello all! A while back, I created a spreadsheet that calculated the effective DPS multiplier from Accuracy. My intent was to allow a way for people to compare MIG and DEX from a damage-doing perspective. We're in the Backer Beta to provide feedback, and our feedback is only as useful as our information. Knowledge is power. Etc.... My spreadsheet was pretty well received. Sparked some good discussion about how the different attributes affect combat dps, and led to some new insights on my part from some errors pointed out by others. So I've taken your feedback into consideration and revamped the spreadsheet, adding new capability. There's now a master calculation sheet where you can vary any and all of these 17 variables: Graze Damage Crit Damage MIG % Damage Bonus/Point MIG % Damage @ 0 DEX Accuracy/point Might Dexterity Base Accuracy (from class) % Damage Bonus (abilities etc) Bonus Accuracy (abilities etc) Weapon Base MIN Damage Weapon Base MAX Damage Attack Speed (frames) Recovery Time (frames) Target Deflection Target DT DT Effectiveness To calculate the resulting dps. Up to 20 different combinations are supported (and you can probably figure out how to add more if you want). My hope is that through the power of crowdsourcing, members of this community will discover new insights about the balance and tuning of PoE's combat and combat stats. Make informative graphs. See how a 25% increase in crit damage and an increase of the DEX Accuracy bonus to 1.5/level will solve all the balance problems!! (I just made that up, but you get the point). The more we know about the actual balance, the more valuable feedback we can give about balance changes. People are arguing elsewhere about really major mechanics that, while important to discuss, probably aren't going to change much. What will change, and what we have the chance to affect and improve, are the tuning changes. So please - use this spreadsheet! Find interesting relationships among the variables! Share your insights with the community. So without further ado, here is the spreadsheet. Enjoy New Excel: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29325716/Pillars%20of%20Eternity%20DPS%20calc%20V2.xlsx Old Excel: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29325716/Pillars%20of%20Eternity%20DPS%20calc%20V2.xls Unfortunately I think there are some compatibility issues with Google Sheets - if anyone figures out how to make it work, let us know. On to the second part of the post. This will be short, but I wanted to be sure and talk about it really quick. MIG vs DEX. There has been some debate as to if MIG or DEX actually increases your damage more. And as Azrael Ultima pointed out, the marginal benefit of one more point in MIG or DEX is directly dependent on the current value of the other variable. So here's a comparison chart. On the Y axis is the marginal % damage increase (% of BASE damage, mind you - so all %s are based on the same scale) and on the X axis is the current value of Accuracy minus Deflection. As you can see, the math is pretty clear. If Accuracy minus Deflection is greater than 5, MIG is always going to increase your dps more. If Accuracy minus Deflection is less than 5, DEX will usually increase your dps more. Only exception is when Accuracy minus Deflection are between -5 and -20, where the dominating stat depends on your current value of MIG. So it would seem that if you want an optimal build, you don't want to completely dump either - but neither is completely un-viable or always better than the other one either. In particular, note that this basically means more accurate characters will do better against enemies with very high deflection, while more mighty characters will do better against enemies with very low deflection. Kind of makes sense. So (at least at first glance) it looks like these are pretty well balanced, from a dps standpoint at least (there are of course more factors to consider when comparing different stats than just dps). So... that's what I've got for today. Take the spreadsheet - use it to answer "what if?" questions about game balance and tuning. Present insights with the community. Help PoE be the best game it can be. PS - Here's the equations used. Might be slightly simplified from what is used in the spreadsheet (the DT usage I didn't even try because it's literally an entire sheet of the spreadsheet by itself), but the general idea is there.
  14. Hi Obsidian! Thank you for all the work on Pillars of Eternity! I recently powered up the Beta Backer and I am enjoying having an early look at the game and testing it out. As I play through the game and come across bugs and balance issues, I'll try as much as possible to research these issues and highlight them if I feel necessary and beneficial to the final release play experience of PoE. This initial post will focus on the Cipher class and balancing issues and bugs related to it. SOUL IGNITION Soul ignition needs to be balanced. RANGE ISSUE: Right now there is a serious exploit with SI that allows a player to clear whole areas without entering combat. The range of SI is huge and a player can cast SI on a MOB and sit back and watch as the MOB is destroyed by the DoT effect without ever drawing aggro. I assume that this not working as intended and would recommend the developer's address this exploit in the next build if possible. Here is a post from another forum user confirming this exploit: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66960-cipher-soul-ignition/?hl=%2Bsoul+%2Bignition DAMAGE ISSUE: Right now now if a player pumps might SI can dispense huge amounts of damage. My character at 21 might delivers a crushing 500+ points of damage per cast. This completely obliterates most MOBS in seconds. I know that the Cipher was designed as a high burst damage class but I am unsure if this power is balanced. Instead of decreasing the damage for SI I would suggest that you INCREASE the FOCUS cost for SI. Require Ciphers to build up 45 or 50 focus prior to being able to cast SI. Here is a post from another forum user confirming the vast amounts of damage SI produces: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67469-another-touch-on-attributes-cipher-power-comparison/
  15. Maybe it has already been mentioned elsewhere and I just didn't see it, but do the special abilities of the Godlike actually scale with level? Because, if not, some are pretty underwhelming and others will surely become useless as the game progresses. Case in point: The Death Godlike does increased damage to enemies below 15% health. That seems borderline useless if the percentage doesn't increase, if we ignore Boss battles with dragons or similar, an enemy with 15% health will die with a few hits either way, decreasing the number of hits needed probably by two at most. It's a bit different with the Moon Godlike, they release healing waves at several points as their stamina goes down. Sounds good, but again if it doesn't scale the amount of healing that was awesome at level 1 will be neglible at level 12. Now some might say: "Why should the Godlike abilities scale anyway? Enjoy your bonus, the other races don't get anything!" Wrong, they get helmets. And helmets do scale and also offer flexibility. Already the Stag Helmet in the beta gives skill and attribute boni and I'm sure that's not the best helmet in the game and surely not the best helmet once the expansion releases. So, do i have to feel embarassed for whining about something that was already answered or do I actually have a point? Opinions?
  16. So, I have focused a lot more on the Chanter than other classes as it is the class I plan on playing first. I want to get into some of their abilities and why they are probably overpowered. I am going to keep this as brief as I can. Why are they OP: Summons - I am unsure if summons are broken mechanically or whether they are intended to last as long as they currently do. Currently... you summon creatures during the first beetle encounter, and they can work in the frontline for the rest of the map. Three Skeletons + fighter in the front line reduces the parties need to cast spells, and increases longevity between rests far too much, IMHO. The lack of a way to dismiss Summons makes me wonder if Summons are suppose to dismiss themselves once combat ends. If this is the case then minor tweaks are needed. If it isn't the case then the summons need their Stamina Pools reduced, and/or they need only summon 1 creature at a time (3 skeletons is too much). Three skeletons also tends to clog up some of the maps... although that is another issue entirely. Buff/Debuff - The chanter has a plethora of these abilities: They have a haste for ranged classes, they can give allies burn damage on their weapons, they can cause fear debuffs, they can reduce Concentration, they can do AoE stamina damage in multiple ways, they can Hobble targets, they can defend/reduce fear effects, etc. These are all phrases, and have no limits to uses per day/rest. They are weaved in a way that makes it like an ever changing Bard Song. They are all AoE. Used in certain ways they can really assist your party, and can be somewhat OP by themselves. I think they are mostly fine, but some tweaking to certain ones like: Come, Come Soft Winds of Death (AoE stamina damage). I love it, and have great fun with it, but I can see it being too powerful. AoE - The Chanter has almost all AoE abilities except for the summons. So, you can buff, debuff, Damage, and CC entire groups of allies/enemies. This is a big one. I particular Culprit is The Thunder Rolled Like Waves on Black Seas. This is an invocation (spell ability that requires 3 phrase counters) that pushes enemies away from the Chanter and Stuns them (Cone spell). So, you can AoE stun enemies while pushing them away from your weaker party members. If you hit the bulk of your enemies you can really change the outcome of a fight. My 2 cents here is that Chanters need summons tuned down (them dismissing after a encounter would be a big one), some AoE abilities (invocations) may need to be single target, and some tweaking may need to be in order for the Phrases. I may have missed something and would love more input.
  17. Im not sure about this but it kinda feels like that one of the main reasons behind the "we can build characters that are good at everything" problem is that we get to many skill points at character creation. Less points would mean that we have to choose what we want and make sacrifices.
  18. In the last few discissions I noticed an irritatinbly high number of people who think that mages, once low on spells, are a total dead weight. Time to disprove such flawed notions. Lets for example take your average D&D spellcaster. Are spells his main thing? Yes. But that isn't the only thing he can do. The thing holding mack mages the most is their low amount of HP* and poeple not using them to their full potential *something I have campaigning for from day 1 is that health is determined by CON alone and class has no bearing on it. This would make mages far more survivable in combat as tehy could have as much HP as a fighter. One thing to decide when building a character (of any class) is what approach to take. - focus on maximizing it's strengths - focus on minimizing weakneses - balanced approach Now, msot peoepl I know go for the first. Got a fighter? All the equipment and skilsl will be there to make him even stronger and more durable! Got a mage? All equipment and skills/feats go to makeing him a stronger spellcaster. That is a valid aproach, but overspecialization is overrated. It works wonderfull as long as everything is going according to plan. But if it doesn't, if you loose that super-specialized tank - suddenly there's total chaos. *** "A great man once said that Specialization is for insects, Mr. Riley. I believed it at the time. I always thought that any human being, man or woman, should be able to do a solid day's work at any task you set them to. Hunt a buck or catch a fish, hammer a nail, build a fire, change the dressing on a wound — I always believed that you had to be ready to do anything to survive." *** Me? I prefer a more balanced approach. You loose a bit on the offensive side, but gain survivabiltiy and flexibility. I'm gonna give a few example from D&D that work. ToEE, Elven sorcerres Aquariliyane. Being an elf, she starts with weapon proficiency: longsword and has a dex bonus. So I give her 1 lvl of fighter and take Weapon Speacilization and Weapon Finesse (use DEX bonus for to-hit insted of STR). With spells like Blur and Mage Armor (this spell lasts the whole day) her AC is quite impressive (especially if you increase DEX even more or use bbracers of defense). Add Fire Shild, Gaseous form or similar if necessary, but for now let's discount spells, since we are talking about a depleted mage scenario (mage armor still applies tough). She was quite competent in combat. Enough so that she could take on lesser enemies by herself. Then we have Avernus. A human wizzard. He was worse in mele than her, but that's OK, because he had a different role to play. He had an enchanted repeating crossbow (in which he was given proficiency). With gloves of dexterity he was accurate enough with it (and it helped some of his tough spells and AC too). Most of all he was busy making scrolls and wands. When he was out of spells, he was far from useless. I used both of them in ToEE extensively, not backtracting or resting untill my entire party was tired. I cleared enitre dungeon levels without spells and wihout dying. *** What a mage can do even without spells: - make and use items like wands and scrolls (plenty of usefull wands are cheap enough to make and start with 20 charges). They might cost gold and EXP, but EXP can be gained back fast enough (especailly since those lagging behind the group get more) - ranged support - mele distraction/support Note that with combat manouvers being availlbe to every class, even a mage can get behind an enemy and attampt to trip him, or charge and knock him over. A character doesn't have to have to deal a huge amount of DPS to be usefull. A completely average character can turn the tide of battle with proper application.
  19. Not sure if this has been really addressed before in here, if it has please link to the thread and close this. In many Bioware games, and, indeed, RPGs in general, when rpesented with choices/options in conversation or for resolving quests, the "good" choice is almost always the choice that nets the biggest/best rewards. I dislike seeing this dynamic, and I hope that this game addresses that. Just because the "evil" way can be the quick and dirty, doesn't mean it should quantifiably net less reward for the duration of a campaign. Example: Do a quest to retrieve a clan's legendary sword for them, they offer you some gold and their loyalty. Maybe I want that sword, and the clan's allegiance is nothing to me. So maybe I take that sword, worth 3x as much as the gold, but then the clan tries to ambush me later in the game, as opposed to helping me defeat some Big Bad, or reclaim some player housing option (retake a fortress) Just my two cents from my gaming experiences, but I usually play games through at least twice, once as a good aligned, and once as evil (if allowed).
  20. SO we're very early in development, but we've already heard a bit about skills in P:E so I'd like to ask everyone about their preferences. Going by what Josh Sawyer and Tim Cain have said so far they'll try to balance skills very well. They'll try to make them equal in terms of both power and opportunity. That's fine. In fact, from a professional designer's standpont that's probably what comes to mind first as an ideal. After all, you're literally selling your mechanics to the customer. If you give the player options, better make them balanced. Recently Josh made an example by giving two choices of skills (Read Ancient Poetry and Lockpicking). His point was that, if you offer the player this choice, Read Ancient Poetry should be a real viable alternative to Lockpicking. Personally, my preferences are a little different. Let's assume for this example that we're in a bit of a realistic Late Dark Ages/ Early Middle Ages setting, where locks are rather rare, and the players aren't swimming in gold. When there is a lock though, a container should usually hold something valuable. Due to this, Lockpicking should be one of the most powerful skills in the game. To balance this, different skill point costs should be attached to Lockpicking (i.e. it costs 3 points per rank), while Read Ancient Poetry should be a cheap skill to raise (costing 1 point). That way, you make it clear from the beginning that Read Ancient Poetry isn't going to pay off as much as Lockpicking. I'm not talking about totally gimping the player; practically, there MUST be instances where Ancient Poetry is useful in the game, otherwise it's bad design. However, I don't see the need to make both skills equally useful. It wouldn't make you a bad gamist if you put some points into Ancient Poetry instead of Lockpicking; it would simply make for a different and, possibly, more difficult playthrough. If you decide to spend all of your points on Ancient Poetry, this might make you a bad gamist, but a good roleplayer. Simply make the game play out realistically with this decision (in a single player game, this character might not be able to finish the game). That's not a bad thing at all. You tried a character build and it failed. It's not the designer's responsibility to make the game failproof IMO, and thereby make choices meaningless. Several skills come to mind that could be potentially very powerful but also expensive: - Alchemy - Lockpicking - Trap Disarming - Medical All of these potentially pay high dividends. Lockpicking can make you rich. Trap disarming can save your life. Alchemy produces spell-like or unique effects. Even if I don't get the chance to use them all the time, they could be v. powerful. Specializing in them (mastering them) should take serious dedication and limit your character building options accordingly. Some skills might be potentially powerful, but with some greater limitations (these cost 2 points per rank): - Sneaking - Pickpocketing - Smithing (Repair) While sneaking is useful for scouting and therefore potentially very powerful, it's not as great as it could be in a game with bottlenecks where you have to fight in the end anyway. Pickpocketing is usually only very powerful if you meta-game it (knowing which NPCs carry good items and reloading on failure). Consequences of failure are usually stark. Repair is v. useful if gold is rare or weapons get damaged in the middle of a dungeon, but potentially not as powerful if it can be done via NPCs. OTOH, cheap skills should not be as powerful, even though they might be more frequently used: - Herbalism - Heraldry - Read Ancient Poetry Herbalism could be used frequently throughout your travels, but be not very powerful on its own (it takes Alchemy to brew potions and herbs can also be bought). With their low cost these skills offer room for character diversity (even though you can also specialize in them). You will have 6 characters who can spend their non-combat skill points freely without losing combat effectiveness. So let's say there should be 6-8 skills in each of these categories to allow for some good character diversity. You get 2 or 3 skill points per level to spend on these. What I'd like to achieve that way is the following: - Party diversity. You probably won't have a specialist in all of the most powerful skills (and if you do, you'll have to completely neglect the other two categories). - Make some skills as epic as they deserve to be, not a grey mass where every skill is somewhat good and somewhat 'meh'. - Avoid certain pitfalls that come with trying to make all skills equal. (Limiting Alchemy to mimicking spell effects. Finding contrived reasons why Read Ancient Poetry is just as powerful as Lockpicking in your game.) If we look at Darklands as an example, you could choose certain professions that favored certain skills while neglecting others. Therefore, you could build a master alchemist who was brittle and bad at combat. This was offset by the fact that Alchemy was probably the most powerful skill in the game. It was also ok because it's a party based game and there one-dimensional specialist characters aren't a problem; they're only weak/ annoying in single character games or MMO's. Now in P:E, the problem of being entirely one-dimensional won't even exist because every character will be combat-able. But it would still be very nice to be able to say 'not every party will have or need a master alchemist. If you have one, that can be very helpful at certain stages in the game, but you'll have one less diverse party member'. Also, no matter how goofily you spend your non-combat skill points, it probably won't ruin your party entirely because they can still be good at combat. I'm coming exclusively from playing/ contemplating CRPGs. If you have played with systems like this or something similar, or if there's a consensus on wether it's good or bad, feel free to comment, or post your own preferences.
  21. I didn't see a thread about this here and I thought you guys might find the following information interesting, since it is about Project Eternity. Our good friend, Infinitron, asked Josh Sawyer a question on his formspring and he answered with a video. The question was, "When you write about how all classes in Project Eternity should be "useful", what does that mean? Does it mean they need to be equally powerful and "balanced"? If so, what dos that even mean in a single player, party-based RPG?" Here's his answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGv_-a8GBhY The conversation continued in chat and here was what was said: Q: You didn't address the "party-based" part of my question, though. _Should_ players even care how well any individual character in the party performs compared to another as long as the party as a whole manages to perform its tasks adequately? Also, FYI, the reason I write "balance" in quotes is because I'm not sure the definition of balance you're thinking of is the same one most people think of when they read the word "balance". Balance of what? Power? Usefulness? Choose your words carefully. A: Yes, they should still care because if there are weird imbalances in the party that are assumed to be solved with a "correct" party composition, that implicitly suggests "incorrect" party compositions. It's pretty common in D&D groups to "need" a healer. Arguably in BG2 there are places where you absolutely need an arcane spellcaster. I think that limits potential party compositions and is not a benefit to the player. I think we should move away from class designs that shove classes into a niche that have little/no overlap with other classes and then make content that effectively demands you have a character of class x/y/z to move forward. From my perspective, it's actually not important if the player doesn't care about individual class balance. But I'm the designer, not the player. I can't see any benefit for myself or players for me to *not* consider balance and utility in their design. Q: Re: "Correct" party compositions. See, thing is, that was kind of a part of the core D&D experience for a lot of people. Assembling the crew, like in a heist flick. Gotta have the healer, the mage, the tough guy. You'd carefully "hire" for each position. What about what I'm suggesting would stop you from making/building that party? Q: Presumably, your balancing of the classes would change them in such a way that the familiar dynamic of the classical D&D party would be irrevocably altered. Everybody would be sort of healer-ish, everybody would be sort of fighter-ish, etc. No diversity. Not if drawing outside of traditional lines is an optional activity. Want to build a wizard who wears no armor and stands in the back with noodle arms while the huge full plate fighter pounds on dudes' faces and the rogue scoots around backstabbing? Cool Q: Moreover, you might wish to consider that the traditional distinct classes had a sort of elegant simplicity to them. You've no doubt seen how every first-time player goes and rolls up his first Human Fighter. And not a Half-Elf Fighter/Mage/Thief. I might be getting a bit theoretical here since this is hardly an issue for me, but the traditional classes also had a secondary function, serving as a kind of additional difficulty setting. Fighters were for the beginners, mages were for experts. Nothing will prevent you from building a simple, straightforward, low-maintenance fighter (if you want to) in PE. Q: Oh, I don't doubt that. But of course that leads to the question of whether this great freedom and flexibility in character development will inevitably lead to poorly balanced combat encounters and other content. The most important type of balance. Inevitably? Come on. Q: Heh. I share your optimism! Unfortunately I can't say the same for everybody I know. You know, it would be great if you or somebody else at Obsidian could tell us a bit more about how you guys design and balance individual combat encounters in your games. [source]: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer -------------------------------------- So, what do you think? Let everyone know. But, please please please please please please please please keep the conversation on-topic. If you're going off on tangents, just start a new thread.
  22. There's a fair bit of discussion here about game balance and various subsystems, such as armor, weapons, dual-wielding etc. Josh Sawyer in particular has discussed the utility of skills a fair bit. Magic has been discussed a bit too. One thing that hasn't been done well in any cRPG I've played, though, is situational utility of combat skills (and equipment). I think it would be a great way to add variety to the gameplay and encourage creativity in character and party builds. By situational utility I mean making different types of combat skills be more or less effective in different situations, or against different opponents. I think this sort of thing would be relatively easy to model in a game system, and it would be pretty easy to have them contribute to the verisimilitude of the game as well. A few examples off the top of my head. Large weapons with lots of reach would work better against large creatures and beasts but be significantly hampered in confined spaces. Heavy armor gives a great deal of protection against damage but would take time to equip and would fatigue you more quickly, which means you would only be able to use it if you had time to prepare for combat, and you'd have to find a way to conserve or restore your stamina during combat if it dragged on. A character would need to be physically very strong and fit to be able to manage this, but would not need to be acrobatically nimble. On the other hand, dual-wielding two light weapons gives an advantage to feinting and parrying. This means it's more effective against human(oid)s, but less effective against beasts and suchlike. Dual-wielding requires higher dexterity, which means trading off something else, resulting in a particular type of fighter. His blows are light but precise, and his skills are honed for one-on-one duels with humans. Piercing weapons would be useless against unliving enemies, but perhaps more effective at getting through magical protection; firearms could be a more powerful version of the same, but with slow reload rates. You'd have a better chance against a battlemage with a gun and a rapier than with a longsword or a sling, but you'd be advised to bludgeon a skeleton or a golem into submission rather than trying to ineffectively poke holes into it. If the game system had these types of complexities, and a variety of combat challenges to match them, it would make party and character-building very interesting. One party could be a collection of specialists, with the one with the right skills taking point in each encounter and the others moving to support her; another could go for a set of well-rounded characters able to perform at their best in most situations, and would use that tactically to their advantage. Both would be viable strategies for victory, but would require very different tactics. Additionally, no build would be objectively better in all circumstances. Our nimble dual-wielding Scaramouche might be able to best heavily-armored Sir George of Joustalot in a duel, with a skilful stab in a vulnerable spot -- but Sir George would run a raging magic giant wild boar right through with his lance where Scaramouche's best bet for survival would be to climb a tree. N.b.: I'm not arguing for any of these mechanics specifically; rather, I would like to see a system of mechanics balanced out to function differently in different circumstances. I don't really care about the details. Thoughts?
  23. My primary draw to medieval fantasy games is spellcasting. Hence, my greatest draw to Infinity Engine games (D&D) has been the incredible sophistication of the spell casting system. While Vancian systems have their complications, every other system I've experienced pales by comparison. Since P:E has chosen to use cooldowns, I have some very serious concerns. Meaningful Effects Will spells be able to meaningfully alter the status of an opponent? I speak of spells like Emotion, Hold, Confusion, Domination, Sleep, and even death spells. Outside of vancian systems, the most wizards can hope for is "Stun for 0.089786976 seconds every X seconds" or "Slow for 1.09809 seconds every X seconds". Cooldowns & mana casting are the primary culprits for this devolution of spellcasting. Since P:E has chosen cooldowns, I am deeply concerned. How much should I fear spellcasting will be a stupor of generic damage spells with different durations/animations? Potency & Resistance How will the effectiveness of spells being determined? Will there be a roll to save type device as in D&D where DC is pitted aginst Saving Throws, or a percentage based system (45% likely to effect opponent)? Likewise, will wizards be able to meaningfully increase the potency of their spells, or will they have to accept the harsh reality that their limited quanity of spells will only work 40-60% chance at best? Spell Protections & Counterspells Perhaps one of the most shining aspects of the spellcasting in the Baldur's Gate series were the myriad of spell protections (Spheres, Shields, Traps, etc.) and their counters (Breach, Spell Penetration, Warding Whip, etc.). Will this degree of depth be present in P:E spellcasting? I apologize if these topics have been previously addressed. Should that be the case, I would very much appreciate links to those discussions.
  24. Hey, a new forum to spoil with another tilted poll. So you'll meet potential companions. Do you want all to be equal in their abilities (within their class). Examples are incorrect, I don't remember the stats or levels or characters or stuff. That was largely the case in BG and such, the girl from next door is basically the same as a master assasin you come upon later. Granted, the girl is level 1 and the assasin is level 5 (but so are you and the girl when you meet him). Now this pretty much worked and didn't bother me much at all. All were D&D adventurers afterall. But I kind of would have liked some characters, like a finest swordsman ever, to have had significantly better luck with stat rolls. Where it really bothered me, were NWN2, DA:O, MotB. When I get a humongously powerful blade golem... well I was a bit disappointed it was just about exactly as effective as whatever fighter type I'd have around. Less so actually, given how fighters would have souped up weapons. DA:O, Sten and the Golem. Both are storywise presented as absurdly powerful creatures, yet they don't have anything to show for it. Neither is stronger than just another fighter, the golem is actually pretty weak compared even to alistari. MotB, bear gods and ancient devourer creatures... are just as powerful as any other companion. Now, I understand there's game balance to be considered. If some companions are more powerful than others, there's this minmax need to take the powerful ones. But if I get a demon from hell as a companion, I don't want him to be another Fighter: Level 8 Nor do I want him to be just at the same powerlevel as my childhood sweetheart. Opinions?
×
×
  • Create New...