Pls make the skill system less grind-y

[@Li3n]

I was thinking something like this:

 

Make the attributes* (Str, Dex, Int etc.) climb slower and be more like in D&D, where they affect more stuff and even a slight increase matters. Have every level for Melee, Ranged and 2 Magic skill (or whatever you call them) actually just give you access to more feats for that skill tree (and it would have more feats then previous games, especially passive ones) and you'd have to chose one from all the ones available so far each lvl-up, and have your attributes only increase every like 10 levels (and once for the first level in that tree) for each skill tree by the appropriate attributes (e.g. melee = +5 Str, +1 Dex, +4 Con; ranged = +3 Str, +5 Dex, +2 Con). And the two magic skills would affect Con (life basically) and the 2 magic attributes (Int and Wis - which fit Combat and Nature Magic respectively pretty well, don't they, and you can ).

 

*note that i'm using the D&D 3.5 type system and terminology to make it easier to understand

 

 

But anything that makes it feel less like just swinging your sword over and over and gives you more options (especially for the melee character) would be welcomed.

Edited July 31, 2010 by @Li3n

[Draganta]

Make the attributes* (Str, Dex, Int etc.) climb slower

 

Like in DS1. It was awesome. I dont know why, but that just feels much better.

[KO771]

yeah, liked it in DS1, too.

[Hassat Hunter]

I get the impression the OP hasn't even played DS2, with the skill suggestion though.

[Vuguroth]

I hear a lot of players complaining about DS2 being grindy and they got tired of this and the other.

I never got tired of DS2. I've created a good deal of parties and have had great fun with interesting character builds and simply enjoying the well constructed universe. To be able to develop those negative kind of feelings, to me, is kinda like hosting a devil. That devil hinders you from having a qualitative time.

 

This world is just wrong for not using what already existed in DS2 and just making more of it. Then you wouldn't have to deal with poor games and letdowns that are being thrown out to both console and PC. It would take a lot less work to use an existing game engine, polishing, fixing it up and continuing to use it.

 

Heroes IV is one of those classic examples of an extremely poor game, when Heroes III has an extreme amount of play hours put into it and you have big folk-made mods+maps going around. The way in which the game producing industry actually has grasped these methods is in MMORPG's that get continually expanded and altered. To me it just makes a great deal of sense to make relaunches... Somehow there just was a lot more sensibility in the DOS days of game making.

 

I suppose negotiations between developing teams and publishers are harsh, and the public culture is unhospitable.

[Draganta]

I hear a lot of players complaining about DS2 being grindy and they got tired of this and the other.

I never got tired of DS2. I've created a good deal of parties and have had great fun with interesting character builds and simply enjoying the well constructed universe. To be able to develop those negative kind of feelings, to me, is kinda like hosting a devil. That devil hinders you from having a qualitative time.

 

This world is just wrong for not using what already existed in DS2 and just making more of it. Then you wouldn't have to deal with poor games and letdowns that are being thrown out to both console and PC. It would take a lot less work to use an existing game engine, polishing, fixing it up and continuing to use it.

 

Heroes IV is one of those classic examples of an extremely poor game, when Heroes III has an extreme amount of play hours put into it and you have big folk-made mods+maps going around. The way in which the game producing industry actually has grasped these methods is in MMORPG's that get continually expanded and altered. To me it just makes a great deal of sense to make relaunches... Somehow there just was a lot more sensibility in the DOS days of game making.

 

I suppose negotiations between developing teams and publishers are harsh, and the public culture is unhospitable.

 

You dont think DS2 was disappointing? Thats rare.

[greylord]

I hear a lot of players complaining about DS2 being grindy and they got tired of this and the other.

I never got tired of DS2. I've created a good deal of parties and have had great fun with interesting character builds and simply enjoying the well constructed universe. To be able to develop those negative kind of feelings, to me, is kinda like hosting a devil. That devil hinders you from having a qualitative time.

 

This world is just wrong for not using what already existed in DS2 and just making more of it. Then you wouldn't have to deal with poor games and letdowns that are being thrown out to both console and PC. It would take a lot less work to use an existing game engine, polishing, fixing it up and continuing to use it.

 

Heroes IV is one of those classic examples of an extremely poor game, when Heroes III has an extreme amount of play hours put into it and you have big folk-made mods+maps going around. The way in which the game producing industry actually has grasped these methods is in MMORPG's that get continually expanded and altered. To me it just makes a great deal of sense to make relaunches... Somehow there just was a lot more sensibility in the DOS days of game making.

 

I suppose negotiations between developing teams and publishers are harsh, and the public culture is unhospitable.

 

You dont think DS2 was disappointing? Thats rare.

 

RARE?

 

I've not met anyone who was disappointed in DS2 or thought it was worse then DS1 in person. I've only met people who thought DS1 was better when talking to people over the internet. I LOVED DS2. Maybe it's just the people I know (they say like minded people hang together) but those I played with thought DS2 was the best action RPG since Diablo 2.

Edited August 6, 2010 by greylord

[Draganta]

I hear a lot of players complaining about DS2 being grindy and they got tired of this and the other.

I never got tired of DS2. I've created a good deal of parties and have had great fun with interesting character builds and simply enjoying the well constructed universe. To be able to develop those negative kind of feelings, to me, is kinda like hosting a devil. That devil hinders you from having a qualitative time.

 

This world is just wrong for not using what already existed in DS2 and just making more of it. Then you wouldn't have to deal with poor games and letdowns that are being thrown out to both console and PC. It would take a lot less work to use an existing game engine, polishing, fixing it up and continuing to use it.

 

Heroes IV is one of those classic examples of an extremely poor game, when Heroes III has an extreme amount of play hours put into it and you have big folk-made mods+maps going around. The way in which the game producing industry actually has grasped these methods is in MMORPG's that get continually expanded and altered. To me it just makes a great deal of sense to make relaunches... Somehow there just was a lot more sensibility in the DOS days of game making.

 

I suppose negotiations between developing teams and publishers are harsh, and the public culture is unhospitable.

 

You dont think DS2 was disappointing? Thats rare.

 

RARE?

 

I've not met anyone who was disappointed in DS2 or thought it was worse then DS1 in person. I've only met people who thought DS1 was better when talking to people over the internet. I LOVED DS2. Maybe it's just the people I know (they say like minded people hang together) but those I played with thought DS2 was the best action RPG since Diablo 2.

 

Dont get me wrong, it was an excellent rpg. I like ds1 and 2 even more than Diablo 2, I played Diablo 2 when it was new, still, the DS1 experience was unbelievable for me. Even though DS2 was improved, it didnt feel right. The stats for example, in DS1 I always knew what stats I would have at certain levels, but in DS2, the stats were like 100+ after a few levels. Way too much. And the gameplay, I hate the diablo 2 system with the 3 towns & teleporting system. DS1 was way better. When we were tracking through secret forests, we never knew when there was a shop coming. It was really exciting. They killed that excitement in DS2 with the town teleport stuff. Maybe that is worth making a topic for it's own? I hope DS3 doesnt have the same teleport system.

 

For me, that ruined DS2. It was still a good game, but I only finished it 3 times. You dont wanna know how much I finished DS1 .

[LadyCrimson]

DS1 was the better game overall, imo. Although when I say that, I'm mostly referring to the MP world map & playing solo which I did for ages, vs. the SP campaign. The SP was fun, don't get me wrong, but while I made several parties of varying sizes (once using only mules) I never did actually finish it...

 

When I first tried DS2, I was 'wtf this sucks' and didn't play long. Later I tried again, forced myself to play further and by the halfway point I'd come to like it quite a lot. It just wasn't what I was expecting in a DS sequel & I had to get used to it. But I came to appreciate it/had fun. DS2's expansion Broken Sword, however...I didn't like that at all.

 

In terms of stats...while the 'use skill to gain skill in it' was tedious & could/would gimp chrs. if you weren't careful, I found it a bit more interesting technically than the now-common skill-tree where you put pts. in pre-determined sequences of pre-made skills and carry on. ie, I actually liked the challenge aspect to switching between sword and spell to raise str/intel more equally. It felt like my chr. strengths, then, where actually based on actions I did, not just leveling up so I could place points. Ho-hum. If that makes sense.

 

I wish there was a way to combine both aspects into one fun system....hm.

[greylord]

DS1 was the better game overall, imo. Although when I say that, I'm mostly referring to the MP world map & playing solo which I did for ages, vs. the SP campaign. The SP was fun, don't get me wrong, but while I made several parties of varying sizes (once using only mules) I never did actually finish it...

 

When I first tried DS2, I was 'wtf this sucks' and didn't play long. Later I tried again, forced myself to play further and by the halfway point I'd come to like it quite a lot. It just wasn't what I was expecting in a DS sequel & I had to get used to it. But I came to appreciate it/had fun. DS2's expansion Broken Sword, however...I didn't like that at all.

 

In terms of stats...while the 'use skill to gain skill in it' was tedious & could/would gimp chrs. if you weren't careful, I found it a bit more interesting technically than the now-common skill-tree where you put pts. in pre-determined sequences of pre-made skills and carry on. ie, I actually liked the challenge aspect to switching between sword and spell to raise str/intel more equally. It felt like my chr. strengths, then, where actually based on actions I did, not just leveling up so I could place points. Ho-hum. If that makes sense.

 

I wish there was a way to combine both aspects into one fun system....hm.

 

I might have liked DS2 better then DS1...but I have to whole heartedly agree with broken sword. Never could put my finger on why...but completely hated that expansion.

[Humodour]

DS3 will not use a 'learn-by-doing' level system, so it's a moot point.

[Purkake]

DS3 will not use a 'learn-by-doing' level system, so it's a moot point.

Dungeon Siege in name only!

[LadyCrimson]

DS3 will not use a 'learn-by-doing' level system, so it's a moot point.

I know...was just saying it'd be interesting if you could use a combo of such + skill trees. In any action-rpg game. There might be a way to do it that would be fun/cool/effective.

[Archaven]

DS3 will not use a 'learn-by-doing' level system, so it's a moot point.

 

Are you sure? Is there an official source for that? If it's true then it is awesome! I hate the learn-by-doing level system to be honest. I would like to see skill tree something like Diablo or Titan Quest though.

[WorstUsernameEver]

A bit OT but we should probably open a 'What we know so far' topic to keep all this information, with sources, quotes and all of that.

Plus, maybe, just maybe, a developer could come there and correct what's wrong.

[greylord]

A bit OT but we should probably open a 'What we know so far' topic to keep all this information, with sources, quotes and all of that.

Plus, maybe, just maybe, a developer could come there and correct what's wrong.

 

that sounds like a good idea, with the added, sticky it to the top of the forum as well.

[Vuguroth]

DS3 will not use a 'learn-by-doing' level system, so it's a moot point.

 

Are you sure? Is there an official source for that? If it's true then it is awesome! I hate the learn-by-doing level system to be honest. I would like to see skill tree something like Diablo or Titan Quest though.

 

Diablo has the worst skill tree ever DS2 is many times better.

The learn-by-doing you're talking about here in DS based forums is that classes aren't locked in DS2 as they are in, as an example, Diablo, where you pick one class and you get their growth(points), skills etc and that's it.