Hit & Miss - Finalized/Updated?

[Doppelschwert]

I am a believer in transparent numerical feedback.  As a designer, I don't like creating internal systems that translate and obfuscate mechanics.  E.g. I would rather not create an armor system that puts an otherwise unintelligible integer into a relative level-based formula to determine its actual protective value.  I want players to engage with mechanics, not disengage from them.  If only -- to use an already overused and misappropriated word -- "theorycrafters" can really understand how a system works, I would rather not use it.

 

I'm also not interested in perpetuating or catering to common misconceptions about probability.  I would rather show mechanics in their "naked" form, preferably with an option for extremely verbose feedback, and have players come to terms with the reality of probability.

 

Yeah, I agree with you - transparency is most of the time the better way to go. Now that you mention it, the system of fire emblem probably emphasizes the misconceptions regarding probability. Anyway, I was just mentioning the system to say that you have a point in the misconceptions people have, as you can effectively only cater to these expectations by lying about the probabilities.

 

So what I really wanted to say is that given the goal of transparent numerical feedback, I think you're on the right track with your system.

[teknoman2]

I am a believer in transparent numerical feedback.  As a designer, I don't like creating internal systems that translate and obfuscate mechanics.  E.g. I would rather not create an armor system that puts an otherwise unintelligible integer into a relative level-based formula to determine its actual protective value.  I want players to engage with mechanics, not disengage from them.  If only -- to use an already overused and misappropriated word -- "theorycrafters" can really understand how a system works, I would rather not use it.

 

I'm also not interested in perpetuating or catering to common misconceptions about probability.  I would rather show mechanics in their "naked" form, preferably with an option for extremely verbose feedback, and have players come to terms with the reality of probability.

i dont think you will find many people who would disagree on this. it's always better to look at a number and know what it means, instead of having an instructions manual and a scientific calculator and try to make sense of complicated equasions to see how much the 42 defense you have actually protects you

[Lephys]

2: If grazes are basically sub optimal and not desirable outside of "graze or miss" situations, which can't be that common and could surely be fought with a better approach, what does that say about the fighter class if one of the top end skills is being able to graze more often?

Look at it like something common from other games: that ability that does less total damage but pierces armor a lot more (or that ammo that does so, or what-have-you). If you run into some enemies, are you gonna go "YEAH! SWITCH TO MY ARMOR-PIERCING ABILITY/WEAPON/AMMO!"? No. Because it's actually only producing a detriment for you under the given circumstances. But then, on occasion, you're going to run into that heavily armored foe, against which most of your attacks are doing piddly amounts of damage. So now, in that situation, using an ability that does a maximum of 8 damage instead of 12 but actually gets through up to 10 points of armor (so it's not doing like 1 and 2 damage every time against the armor) is extremely valuable.

 

Like Teknoman said, I think it's much more like the ability to convert miss chance into graze chance, and half damage is INFINITELY better than no damage.

 

i dont think you will find many people who would disagree on this. it's always better to look at a number and know what it means, instead of having an instructions manual and a scientific calculator and try to make sense of complicated equasions to see how much the 42 defense you have actually protects you

Indeed. And, perhaps even more importantly, intuitively grasp the relationship between that number and the factors/choices that affect it. If you're presented with two different armor values on two different pieces of armor at a merchant's stall, it shouldn't require a notepad and a calculator to get a pretty good idea of what kind of effects the difference in those values is going to have on your combat experience over time.

 

Of course, then you have those games in which the system is consistent, but the actual encounter/content design/balance is not. So you take that +10 damage ability over that +5 accuracy ability, and it works well for a little bit, then, an hour later, and for the entire rest of the game, damage is almost meaningless, and accuracy is everything.

 

Different problem, but same resulting confusion.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Lephys

[Hormalakh]

 

as long as it is not like in dnd (icewind dale to be precise) where i did a backstab 5x with a roll of 20 and i did 35 damage, when max potential was over 100.

 

That's one of the biggest changes for rogues/thieves between 2nd Ed. and 3.X.  Because backstab in 1st Ed./2nd Ed. was a multiplier, you could perform a backstab and easily roll a 1 for your base damage, resulting in a pathetically low total.  In 3.X, this became additional d6s of damage.  It was a good change because it normalized that damage output, but it also caused a lot of consternation while we were developing IWD2 and NWN2.  Some testers simply couldn't believe that when they were doing +15d6 damage that they wouldn't get close to 90 points of bonus damage at least some of the time -- even though "some of the time" is extremely rare when you're rolling 15d6.

 

On IWD2, I eventually had to go over to QA with 15 actual six-sided dice and roll them in front of them 20 times, charting the results on a sheet of paper.  On NWN2, Andy Woo, who has a master's degree from MIT in combinatorics, had to explain the same thing, in detail, before testers would accept that the RNG wasn't flawed.

 

 

This is a good example of what I had been talking about a long time ago: sometimes I wish designers would be creative with how they present information. The whole 15d6 is very difficult to understand unless you have some understanding in probablity, and the issue isn't that your testers were stupid: it's that you can't repeat the same information over and over again and expect them to understand it: the information has to be presented in a different, hopefully more intuitive way. 

I bet that instead of showing your damages in a simple number format like 15d6, you had shown it using a distributive curve, they would have been more likely to understand it. Here's a link to what I mean. Instead of using mathematical notation, if you had shown them a picture (or presented the information in any other intuitive way), they would've understood how to utilize that information. 

 

I applaud your efforts to minimize obfuscation: it'll make the game more fun for everyone. 

[Sensuki]

I am a believer in transparent numerical feedback.  As a designer, I don't like creating internal systems that translate and obfuscate mechanics.  E.g. I would rather not create an armor system that puts an otherwise unintelligible integer into a relative level-based formula to determine its actual protective value.  I want players to engage with mechanics, not disengage from them.  If only -- to use an already overused and misappropriated word -- "theorycrafters" can really understand how a system works, I would rather not use it.

 

I'm also not interested in perpetuating or catering to common misconceptions about probability.  I would rather show mechanics in their "naked" form, preferably with an option for extremely verbose feedback, and have players come to terms with the reality of probability.

 

In that light though, can we choose to obscure target "DCs" or "ACs" in the combat log on top of disabling the stat pop-ups to make it like the Infinity Engine games (my suspicions tell me that by default Eternity will show the target values for rolls).

Edited November 1, 2013 by Sensuki

[Silent Winter]

 Differentiating the different members of that party in ways that make them unique and valuable is one of our goals.

 

  Yep, that's what I want.  Sounds like the classes are being well balanced and differently useful - good stuff.

On IWD2, I eventually had to go over to QA with 15 actual six-sided dice and roll them in front of them 20 times, charting the results on a sheet of paper.

Oh dear

"So if 1 die has a 1/6 chance of landing on a 6 then surely 15 dice have a 1/6 chance of landing on all 6's...no?"

"Erm, no.  Here, let me show you."

[curryinahurry]

 

 

Fighters are not a high damage output class.  Rogues are.  Fighters are the most durable and reliable combatants in the class lineup.  Barbarians are cool mob-oriented characters, but they cannot hold a line and they cannot endure long-term punishment like a fighter can.  Rogues will absolutely annihilate a single target faster than a fighter (or barbarian), but have limited durability and are bad at dealing with groups.  Paladins grant great bonuses to their teammates and are fantastic when paired with other nearby characters, but they are not as durable as a fighter and they don't have many potent offensive abilities.

 

Whenever I change my party lineup for testing, I miss the abilities of whatever character I dropped... until the next time I change the party lineup, and I miss the abilities of the "new" characters I drop.  When I drop my fighter, I absolutely miss his Defender mode and Knockdown ability because it's more likely that the melee landscape will turn into a free-for-all.

 

You're not playing a single character in PE; you're playing a party.  Differentiating the different members of that party in ways that make them unique and valuable is one of our goals.  While we do we want people to enjoy every class that we create, we accept that not everyone will like the flavor of every class. ...

 

I've resisted commenting about the combat system because there is so little information, but this quote worries me.  From what Josh Sawyer posted, I'm wondering why anyone would want to choose to play a paladin...that is, what about this class will make gameplay fun for those who choose it as the PC?  I fully understand that  PE is a party based game, but it isn't Icewind Dale; the model for the game more closely follows the BG games in that there is a set protagonist.  In that regard, why would anyone choose a warrior that is middling at dealing damage?  It's a warrior, no?  Shouldn't any warrior have the ability to dish out pain; whether for self interest or righteousness?  

 

The point I'm making here is that the vast majority of people playing this game are going to want their player characters to be badass; and passive auras are not the criteria for which we will judge such badassness.  Stabbing enemies in the face, or blowing them to smithereens with long range nukes is more likely what most people will find satisfying.  

 

We were promised that character classes would allow enough flexibility for us to build unconventional builds; I also hope that means we will be able to build any class to be potent offensively, regardless of the class' title; not a glorified cheerleader or doorstop (honestly, why even call it a fighter if its main attribute is defense...shouldn't it be called a defender?).  People play games like these for a multitude of reasons, but in all cases, they would likely want their player characters to become powerful; and in a game that is combat intensive; that means powerful in dealing damage to foes.  

[Gfted1]

...why would anyone choose a warrior that is middling at dealing damage?  It's a warrior, no?  Shouldn't any warrior have the ability to dish out pain; whether for self interest or righteousness?

From his description, fighters are pretty much mandatory as they are only class that can tank. And unless you catch all the mooks in a bottleneck you will probably need more than one.

[curryinahurry]

 

...why would anyone choose a warrior that is middling at dealing damage?  It's a warrior, no?  Shouldn't any warrior have the ability to dish out pain; whether for self interest or righteousness?

From his description, fighters are pretty much mandatory as they are only class that can tank. And unless you catch all the mooks in a bottleneck you will probably need more than one.

 

 

I was referring to Paladins as a traditional warrior (frontline melee) class, not using it synonymously with the fighter class.  

Edited November 1, 2013 by curryinahurry

[Nonek]

Through no fault of their own Obsidian have inherited these names from D&D, thus my thread on alternate names so that a player does not stumble into a class whose playstyle he finds unlikable. However this can surely be avoided with an informative tutorial or set of tooltips/manual. I do believe there needs to be some clarity when identifying the classes, for instance identifying the poor weapon skills of the Fighter, the superior martial skills of the Rogue, the Paladins mainly inspirational role and the Dervish like spinning (I assume) of the Barbarian.

 

For someone like myself who left AD&D a long time ago and still holds an 18(--) strength fighter to be a veritable juggernaut of destruction on the battlefield, this obviously is rather a strange stuation and explains why my playthroughs of later edition TSR CRPG's (IWD 2 and NWN 2) were so poorly optimised, as I knew nothing about these new roles. Still not a problem for somebody following the development closely as I am.

[Gfted1]

I was referring to Paladins as a traditional warrior (frontline melee) class, not using it synonymously with the fighter class.

I see. In that case the motivation for choosing a Paladin would most likely be for their party buffs. If you haven't seen from previous comments, Paladins seem to be pattered off of the D&D 4th edition Warlord.

[curryinahurry]

 

I was referring to Paladins as a traditional warrior (frontline melee) class, not using it synonymously with the fighter class.

I see. In that case the motivation for choosing a Paladin would most likely be for their party buffs. If you haven't seen from previous comments, Paladins seem to be pattered off of the D&D 4th edition Warlord.

 

 

Yes, I know, but my point was that party buffs are great, but most people who choose to play a warrior class (or any class for that matter) in a crpg as their player character, are going to also want to be fairly proficient at opening a can of whup ass when in combat.  It would be a bit odd to be the hero of a story (and paladins are likely to draw the hero wannabe types) and walk away from a game thinking, "gosh, I remember the time I buffed the crap out of the party during that epic battle with the lich!", instead of, "gosh, I remember that time the time I destroyed the lich with my special attack as my party members rallied around me."

 

I'm not saying it's impossible that Obsidian has included such abilities; just that Josh Sawyer's post worries me that balancing and roles  might lead to a class like the Paladin being fairly flavorless as a player character for those who would want to play the heroic leader type.

 

@Nonek,

 

My comments have nothing to do with D&D; I could care less about it as a system.  My comments have more to do about the fact that dogmatically situating classes within roles is at loggerheads with allowing the player to create a narrative experience through their chosen character if drawn too narrowly.  And most importantly, such roles can be flat out boring; or at least work so against player expectations as to be so.  

 

Again, in a game that has combat primacy, every class available to player characters has to have some potency and particularly those who choose to play front line melee types.  If the combat system can't accommodate this, it will be a failure in my eyes.

Edited November 1, 2013 by curryinahurry

[Gfted1]

I feel your pain, the Paladin is my favorite class and the one I used as my "main" throughout the entire BG series. But what we knew and loved about D&D classes and mechanics has been tossed in favor of a new "vision" and we just have to eat it.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Paladins have flagged behind other melee classes in raw damage output in every edition of A/D&D.  In 1st and 2nd Ed., the only core damage-based bonus they had was from using a Holy Sword.  In the BG/IWD games, they could specialize, but they couldn't gain mastery+.  Even their BG2 kits only have conditional attack/damage bonuses.  The rest of their class abilities are mostly passive defensive bonuses or support effects (Lay on Hands, Cure Disease, etc.).

 

You seem to be equating "not top-tier damage dealer" with hitting like a limp noodle.  This isn't the case at all, just as is wasn't in the BG/IWD games.

[curryinahurry]

@ Gitfted1

 

I edited my post, but D&D is less my concern than the fact that fighters are fighters and should be able to fight.  More importantly, I am worried about roles as they are being described by Josh Sawyer in this thread as they sound much more constricting than I had understood previously.   I think you had mentioned a rock, paper, scissors combat default in another thread, and that is exactly what I don't want in this game.  

 

@ JE Sawyer

 

As I said, I know little about the system, and I could care less about D&D as the baseline.  I am coming at this more from the POV of player expectation with regards to class typology and whether the class will be fun to play.  I don't know the system as we have only snippets to go by and what you've stated in this thread gives me pause because it makes me ask the question, "why is this fun for me as my player character?" with no obvious answer (by the way, I will not play a paladin in my first play through and have never been particularly found of the class in any of its incarnations).  Believe me, as someone who exclusively plays melee characters, auras and buffs just won't cut it as a fun factor.  

Edited November 1, 2013 by curryinahurry

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

...why would anyone choose a warrior that is middling at dealing damage?  It's a warrior, no?  Shouldn't any warrior have the ability to dish out pain; whether for self interest or righteousness?

From his description, fighters are pretty much mandatory as they are only class that can tank. And unless you catch all the mooks in a bottleneck you will probably need more than one.

 

 

They aren't mandatory.  But just as I miss the fighter's abilities when I drop him from the party, I miss the paladin's abilities when I drop her from the party.  Reviving Exhortation and Shake It Off are both extremely valuable single-target commands.  The effects of their auras are less visible moment-to-moment but also make a big difference.

[Gfted1]

What other classes can prevent "My fighter was occupied when he came up, so the enemy wound up Melee Engaging my wizard."?

[Gfted1]

I think you had mentioned a rock, paper, scissors combat default in another thread, and that is exactly what I don't want in this game.

Im not too crazy about it either but I think a lot of players are looking forward to that as being "tactical". Im lazy and would just rather equip BiS for each class and go crack some skulls. Ill probably take that approach anyway and just suffer the damage decrease instead of hovering / squinting to see that mook 1 is wearing leather so I need to switch to whatever is best against leather.

[J.E. Sawyer]

What other classes can prevent "My fighter was occupied when he came up, so the enemy wound up Melee Engaging my wizard."?

 

Any other melee character.  If I had moved my paladin over 5' instead of putting her and the fighter on the same target, she would have Engaged the guy making a beeline for the wizard.  Practically speaking, you need one melee combatant to Engage every enemy that's trying to move past you (assuming they are trying to move past you).  The advantage of a fighter (in this case) is that the Defender mode allows them to Engage multiple enemies at once.

[lolaldanee]

ah god damn, i want to have a look at it already !

which i guess means you overal are doing a good job as i'm so much looking forward to it

[Nonek]

I think there's a certain amount of fun to be had in standing against massive odds, replaying a little Thermopylae if you will, and certainly a massively scarred and experienced veteran might be quite imposing and distinctive. Obviously if this is the protagonist and he has no hand in slaying any of his nemeses, well that creates a little bit of a dissonance, sometimes a matter is personal and one can see why the player would want to have a hand in the final blow rather than tackle minions or just be hit.

 

Still this is the burden of a class system, which the Kickstarter pitch fairly much mandates.

 

Edit: I won't bring up the matter of gameplay outside of combat, and the fun factor of it, as this seems beyond the ambit of the thread.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Nonek

[J.E. Sawyer]

Always keep in mind that Talents exist specifically to adjust the flavor of any given character/class.  If you would like to play a more active-use/aggressive paladin (or fighter), a more defensive rogue, or a lower-maintenance wizard, Talents will give you those options.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I don't know the system as we have only snippets to go by and what you've stated in this thread gives me pause because it makes me ask the question, "why is this fun for me as my player character?" with no obvious answer (by the way, I will not play a paladin in my first play through and have never been particularly found of the class in any of its incarnations).  Believe me, as someone who exclusively plays melee characters, auras and buffs just won't cut it as a fun factor.  

 

For you as your player character?  Clearly paladins have never been a character class you've liked, so I'm not that concerned if you don't like their concept.  I'm more concerned with Gfted1 feeling like the class will satisfy him because he actually likes the class' style in previous games.

[lolaldanee]

from the descriptions so far the PE paladin sounds great as a defensive party buffing character,

but i somewhat can't really see somebody building a more "purely attack oriented fanatic who rains divine death and desctruction over his enemies with mighty divine attack spells and a great 2 handed weapon" type of paladin in PE, which is another important part of the concept of a paladin

[Pipyui]

Differences between accuracy and defense shift the entire scale point for point.

 

15 Accuracy vs. 20 Deflection = 10% Miss, 45% Graze, 45% Hit, 0% Crit

 

Ok, so I'm late to the party here, but how "big" is a 5 point difference in accuracy vs. deflection score?  Will I be unable to crit half the enemies I encounter (presuming approximately same level) because they have good armor?  At the beginning of the game this difference may be huge, but late game will it be trivial (>=5% chance to crit a guy in blue steel plate, 0% to a gal in marginaly shiny blue steel plate)?