I don't get Rangers...

[the streaker]

I suppose over/under-penetration should give you a set % damage increase/decrease (say 10%) for every point you have over/under the target's armor. Not sure why there are "breakpoints," I've never thought that to be good game design.

[Boeroer]

How does it add to replay value? A practical example would be nice.

 

I found Lord Darryn's Voulge and thought: wow, that would be great with a Barbarian if Carnage triggers static charge. Next playthrough I might roll one.

 

I found the small monk shield and thought: wow, that woul be cool with a monk/streetfighter with Riposte.

 

I found the White Witch Mask and immediately decided to roll a new wizard based on Illusions.

 

Stuff like that.

[knownastherat]

So by replay value, you mean incentive? I can understand that, marketing. 

[Boeroer]

Eh... whatever.

[mant2si]

 

How does it add to replay value? A practical example would be nice.

I found Lord Darryn's Voulge and thought: wow, that would be great with a Barbarian if Carnage triggers static charge. Next playthrough I might roll one.

 

I found the small monk shield and thought: wow, that woul be cool with a monk/streetfighter with Riposte.

 

I found the White Witch Mask and immediately decided to roll a new wizard based on Illusions.

 

Stuff like that.

 

 

Yep that is cool, this make ARPG games  like Grim Dawn, Diablo 2, Median Xl, Path of Exile have so much builds and different ways to beat the game. The funny fact, in latest Grim Dawn patch they fixed same problem with defense as PoE has, they added hard limit to how much enemy can miss, something like 40%, there no point to go over this value

[Crucis]

How is making gear as part of builds awesome? It's just stupid. The concept of PEN in Deadfire is stupid. 

 

I have to admit that I don't like reading up on builds that are focused on gear.  I care much more about builds that are focused on race, class/subclass/multiclass, attributes, and abilities.

[knownastherat]

Eh... whatever.

 

Disregarding that the examples you provided are let's say funny.

 

If the game is designed around gear, unlike characters and how they are played, then character building and playing are trivialized to gear hunting. This is especially true when paired with Deadfire PEN mechanic. Sure, gear hunting is/can be fun and is part of the game, but there is much more replay value in multi-classing alone than there is in making gear part of builds as you claimed. 

 

That you found something, and that something made you to play the game again, is clearly an incentive - a thing that motivates or encourages someone to do something -, which indeed can translate to replay value. However, and yet again, the sheer number of classes and multi-classes offer so much replay value that only faction will be able to experience it. In this sense, this super powerful and/or cool gear is nothing but a marketing move simply because what they add to replay value is insignificant to what classes and multi-classes add.

 

Maybe, if Wizard based on Illusions would actually have cool and powerful abilities, outside of Terrify, people would want to try it for another replay without the Mask. As of now .. Oh cool mask, gonna try another replay! .. after 20 hours .. oh wait, these extra PL do **** because Illusionist sucks. Replay value of 20 wasted hours.

Edited June 24, 2018 by knownastherat

[Verde]

For example, there is a great shield for tanks/fighters that scales Deflection with Athletics (makes sense) and Spell reflection/Defense with...Metaphysics. I doubt many ppl initially specced their tank with Metaphysics, but it's a shield worth building around.

 

Same with the Warbow that scales with Survival, perfect for a Ranger.

[XEternalXDreamsX]

 

Accuracy does help overall. I don't actually have a video for it (Or stats to back percent. Ect) but once your accuracy is well above the enemies' AR, you will likely hit steadily. Doesn't it have potentially diminishing returns once it is really high(excluding level scaling, POTD)?

 

Since Ranger has really good accuracy, wouldn't they be able to disperse stats differently and equipment?

As mentioned, those scenarios can happen when the difference between Acc (Accuracy of your attacks) and the corresponding save for said attack (generally 1 of the 4 saves) is greater than 99. This will mean all instances of said attack will already crit and additional Acc will not change this.

 

Similarly, if the difference is too huge such that additional acc will still result in a difference of < -100, additional acc (which again assuming still keeps the acc low enough) will not help to make the attack qualify for graze.

 

In these fringe cases, acc will not do anything unless the respective threshold can be crossed.

 

But yes in a way, there is some diminishing returns if you compare the gains between a situation where an attack can still qualify for all 4 hit resolution states vs the extreme all crit or all miss situations. However, it is generally uncommon in a non-min/ax scenario.

I haven't played Deadfire YET. I will though! ..I don't know the ends and outs of the PEN system. In PoE1, I always went with decently high Dex and Per with a lighter armor and loved it (on Ranger). When I ran with a lower Per, I noticed a difference off top. It doesn't play into the Ranger's strengths to have lower Per. I know it's neither here nor there because this is about Deadfire for this topic.

 

Thanks for the explanation, Mosspit. I'm still learning and these type of conversations will help me once I'm knee deep in Deadfire.

Edited June 24, 2018 by XEternalXDreamsX

[Boeroer]

 

Eh... whatever.

Disregarding that the examples you provided are let's say funny.

 

If the game is designed around gear, unlike characters and how they are played, then character building and playing are trivialized to gear hunting. This is especially true when paired with Deadfire PEN mechanic. Sure, gear hunting is/can be fun and is part of the game, but there is much more replay value in multi-classing alone than there is in making gear part of builds as you claimed.

 

That you found something, and that something made you to play the game again, is clearly an incentive - a thing that motivates or encourages someone to do something -, which indeed can translate to replay value. However, and yet again, the sheer number of classes and multi-classes offer so much replay value that only faction will be able to experience it. In this sense, this super powerful and/or cool gear is nothing but a marketing move simply because what they add to replay value is insignificant to what classes and multi-classes add.

 

Maybe, if Wizard based on Illusions would actually have cool and powerful abilities, outside of Terrify, people would want to try it for another replay without the Mask. As of now .. Oh cool mask, gonna try another replay! .. after 20 hours .. oh wait, these extra PL do **** because Illusionist sucks. Replay value of 20 wasted hours.

You wanted examples, I gave you some.

I think I made my point why I think that build specific gear can add replay value. The game is not designed around gear, it simply had some items that work extremely well with a certain build direction. You can find that good or bad. I think it can be fun and like to develop builds around specific gear and the synergies that occur with certain abilities - if that's not the only viable way to develop good builds. And it surely is not in Deadfire or PoE. I don't give a moist shart if the initial reason for including such gear is marketing or just feeling the same as I do. It's def. not stupid. It's especially not stupid just because you don't like it.

 

I don't like ship combat - but others might. So why would I say that including ship combat was stupid? I don't put my personal taste over others' and don't think that everything that doesn't suit me is stupid and should be changed.

 

But as I said before: whatever. If you feel like this - what can I do? You will not change your opinion on a matter of taste just because I make a reasonable point. I mean who does in an internet forum. This would go back and forth over a minor titbit and no matter the arguments or examples at the end you would still say it's stupid and I will say it's not. Hence "whatever".

 

https://youtu.be/hMeiDVv5t8I

[knownastherat]

If it's not stupid, because what is and whatnot is matter of opinion, then it cannot be awesome or brilliant either for the same reason.

 

Poe was about accuracy and deadfire is both accuracy and penetration. And what's really brilliant about pillars is that obsidian made gear (items/weapons/armors) as part of builds which makes the game really, really awesome.

[Boeroer]

I didn't say that it's brilliant or awesome. I said that it is not stupid and adds a lot of replay value for me. You are answering my post with a quote of somebody else whom I didn't refer to. 

[knownastherat]

I didn't say that it's brilliant or awesome. I said that it is not stupid and adds a lot of replay value for me. You are answering my post with a quote of somebody else whom I didn't refer to. 

 

I know what you said. You were replying to my post without considering the context. I did not say it was stupid out of the blue. My reaction was, obviously, to the post claiming it was awesome and brilliant. You did not care to point out that it's not awesome and brilliant because that is matter of opinion, but you cared to point out it's not stupid because its matter of opinion. 

 

You can keep repeating it adds replay value but the fact remains that its fractional replay value in comparisons, in context, of multi-class combinations. Instead of trying to rationalize your opinion, it's enough to say .. well, I like it .. because the rationalization stated is not very good one.

[Boeroer]

I don't have to point out that it's not generally awesome and brilliant. Because for me it is awesome and brilliant. It's certainly not awesome and brilliant for everybody - like it's certainly not stupid for everybody. And of course this is a matter of opinion and taste - and thus it's always good to say and write exactly that and not make general statements about stuff that is not hard facts.
 
Am I obliged to object if I agree that something is awesome - even if the original poster was generalizing? I don't think so. 

 

Instead of trying to rationalize your opinion, it's enough to say .. well, I like it .. because the rationalization stated is not very good one.

I don't need to rationalize my opinion. I told you it's only my opinion - like I told you that your "stupid" statement is exactly the same: only your opinion. And that including items for certain builds is not stupid (in general) because it adds replay value for me.

 

Then I merely gave examples why I think it adds replay value because you asked for them. Then you tried to invalidate those examples that show why I like those items with some talk about marketing and whatever - stuff that in no way connects with my reasons to like it.

 

It's like:

 

 

Marty McRant: "Gnah! Fruits taste so bad! I hate fruit and it is bad and evil!"

Peter O'Reason: "I don't think fruit in general tastes bad. I like several types of fruit."

Marty McRant: "Well name some!"

Peter O'Reason: "Apples, oranges and bananas."

Marty McRant: "But you only like those because you ate them your whole life and got used to it!"

Peter O'Reason: "I don't care why I like those - I like them, I think they taste great".

Marty McRant: "Bah - don't try to rationalize your opinion! Fruits taste bad because only a fraction of people like fruits!"

 

Yeah, ok. If you want to go on with that then be my guest. It's just so that I have to leave now because I have to make some builds around items and have fun while I'm doing it. See you!

Edited June 25, 2018 by Boeroer

[knownastherat]

I guess we should ask for a split of this derail but I am not sure its worth the time and energy.

 

I don't have to point out that it's not generally awesome and brilliant. Because for me it is awesome and brilliant. It's certainly not awesome and brilliant for everybody - like it's certainly not stupid for everybody. And of course this is a matter of opinion and taste - and thus it's always good to say and write exactly that and not make general statements about stuff that is not hard facts.
 
Am I obliged to object if I agree that something is awesome - even if the original poster was generalizing? I don't think so. 

 

Instead of trying to rationalize your opinion, it's enough to say .. well, I like it .. because the rationalization stated is not very good one.

I don't need to rationalize my opinion. I told you it's only my opinion - like I told you that your "stupid" statement is exactly the same: only your opinion. And that including items for certain builds is not stupid (in general) because it adds replay value for me.

 

Then I merely gave examples why I think it adds replay value because you asked for them. Then you tried to invalidate those examples that show why I like those items with some talk about marketing and whatever - stuff that in no way connects with my reasons to like it.

 

It's like:

 

 

Marty McRant: "Gnah! Fruits taste so bad! I hate fruit and it is bad and evil!"

Peter O'Reason: "I don't think fruit in general tastes bad. I like several types of fruit."

Marty McRant: "Well name some!"

Peter O'Reason: "Apples, oranges and bananas."

Marty McRant: "But you only like those because you ate them your whole life and got used to it!"

Peter O'Reason: "I don't care why I like those - I like them, I think they taste great".

Marty McRant: "Bah - don't try to rationalize your opinion! Fruits taste bad because only a fraction of people like fruits!"

 

Yeah, ok. If you want to go on with that then be my guest. It's just so that I have to leave now because I have to make some builds around items and have fun while I'm doing it. See you!

 

So this Marty McRant is Archaven, right? Who started to rant how brilliant and awesome making gear as part of builds is.

 

Poe was about accuracy and deadfire is both accuracy and penetration. And what's really brilliant about pillars is that obsidian made gear (items/weapons/armors) as part of builds which makes the game really, really awesome.

 

The only mystery remains who the Peter O'Reason is then. Cant be you because your only "reason", beyond "it adds to replay value" which I refuted by noting that such value is fractional to value offered by classes and multi-classes already, is: "I like it". 

 

Of course, you do not need to rationalize your opinion, your "I like", but you've been trying to do that nevertheless. 

[Verde]

This has been a most fruitful endeavor.

 

 

Now how do I close this topic?

[knownastherat]

Well, I guess you could ask moderator but consider that you will spend a couple of minutes fill your request and then s/he will spend a couple of minutes to fulfill it. And what for? 

[MrMoe]

I like the ranger (Maia) as a companion class -  she doesn't require much micromanaging, I just give her the auto-attack AI (standard for every companion) and seldom have to manage her further than giving her a target and get out of hostile range.

 

Just like the hunter class in WoW - join a raid, right click on boss, go afk for 30min, loot! 

 

I think the ranger would excel in smaller parties, but with 5 man and Eder and Pallegina on the front line, the pet is pretty much superfluous.

[Verde]

Well, I guess you could ask moderator but consider that you will spend a couple of minutes fill your request and then s/he will spend a couple of minutes to fulfill it. And what for?

I just removed the follow.

[Camonge]

I'm puzzled at all these complains about rangers (and ciphers too). Yeah rangers got  bad high lvl skills, but they have sick accuracy, 0,5s spammable attack with teleport, a pet for huge tactical benefit, concussive shot... 

[Boeroer]

I also like Evasive Fire a lot. Its base damage is good, it's superfast - and paired with the very long range mobility component it's great - especially since it only costs 1 Bond.

[XEternalXDreamsX]

I'm puzzled at all these complains about rangers (and ciphers too). Yeah rangers got bad high lvl skills, but they have sick accuracy, 0,5s spammable attack with teleport, a pet for huge tactical benefit, concussive shot...

I'm not dissing the Ranger. I enjoy it quite a lot. Deadfire videos and stat guides make me love it even more. It just feels like it doesn't fill a niche in a party that can't be outpaced by another class. I have to reserve my opinion until my computer comes in though so I may be wrong.

[Myztik]

What's good about Concussive Shot?

[Boeroer]

It has 10 bonus accuracy and interrupts on graze. It's easy to interrupt an enemy caster with it.

[UltimaLuminaire]

The upgrade on Concussive Shot also fills a niche as the only ability in the game that targets Deflection and lets you remove 30 sec off beneficial effects. Combined with Ranger's high accuracy, this gives you a solid spectrum of casters that can be hit where Arcane Dampener would miss.