A Dream of Mine - A PE without Cookie Cutter Builds

[IndiraLightfoot]

First of all, the very term "cookie cutter build" may be to much ARPG lingo and munchkin for some peeps here to stomach, but I happen to like ARPGs as well, so just look the other way or hear me out (and yes, first and foremost, I appreciate PE for it being a role-playing game with a good story, adventures and great dialogue):

 

Far too many CRPGs, including the more click-feisty ARPGs, soon end up having a few viable cookie cutter builds, that is, certain choices of characters, including skills and stats, which delivers much more munchkin per inch than any other build. This leads to loads of players looking them up on the internet, and then we have clones of killer machines running around in the game, which also reduces the variety the game is experienced.

 

Let's say this fate would drape itself upon PE. Then all the hard work the devs have invested in the game, all the variety depending on class and race and certain skill and attribute choices will fall upon deaf ears, or rather no ears at all, because so few people will be playing those suboptimal builds.

 

I love theorycrafting and can spend hours even on my first character to get it to be viable with a high survivability. This of course applies to game where I get to make entire parties as well. Do I seek a munchkin build from the get-go? No. I usually start off with a ranger build if it's one-character game. However, that ranger will be a pretty mean ranger when I'm done.

 

So, my dream for PE is this:

If I pick a race and a class, there should be enough options even in the first eight levels of that character to make several strong builds, if not all munchkin-like. Even better, whatever class or race I pick, there should be a few possible routes to absolute power and greatness for the character I pick, including of course several good combos of items, whether weapons, armour or magic trinkets.

 

What I fear is that there is like only one class and one way to build it that will rule all other builds and hit the ball out of the park. I reckon it would be such great fun if there were loads and loads of strong builds, one step short of munchkinhood, as it were. If Obsidian has done it all right, we get to a huge build diversity. NWN2 actually had a lot of possible über-builds, but then again it was based upon 3.5 ed D&D. Josh and the other Obsids have quite a challenge to make a pretty big system that deliver plenty of possibilities for strong and quite varied builds.

 

And like I said, I know that there are many of you who don't even care about all this, and sometimes I envy you, but only sometimes.

[PrimeJunta]

Josh has stated that that's one of his primary design goals with the character system. So as intentions go, I think things are good. We will find out just how good a designer he is when the game comes out, of course. Personally I'm not too worried on that score.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Josh has stated that that's one of his primary design goals with the character system. So as intentions go, I think things are good. We will find out just how good a designer he is when the game comes out, of course. Personally I'm not too worried on that score.

 

In all fairness, though, Obsidian's previous works did not really convince me on that front.

Alpha Protocol was... well, balanced in the respect that every build had the potential to become ridiculously overpowered and steamroll everything except f***ing Brayko, but generally, pistols were way more powerful than anything else.

KotOR 2 had the expanded lightsaber customization system, which made it possible to tear pretty much anything apart in one round... if you used multiattacks, because power attack was generally useless, and criticals weren't significantly better. Force Lightning also functioned as an insta-win button.

Of FNV, I can't say too much, because I've modded it to hell, but I find it telling that I had to install a mod that TRIPLED the damage of firearms in order for the opposition to be actually able to hurt me. Without ever putting points on Endurance.

 

Since their games were always more focused on story, I never had a problem with this, but based on what I've seen so far, I really have my doubts about them delivering that "ultimate tactical combat" experience. But that's a thing I can live without.

[Ulquiorra]

Im personaly not a big fan of bulids like "1lvl paladin, 2lvl druid, 3 level warrior, 34 level wizard" becouse in my opinion it's immersion breaking.

 

But im 100% for a classes that can be bulid in difrent way, warrior in medium armor and high speed, warrior tant with low speed but big defence, offencive mage, support mage, rogue archer, druid shifter, druid mage, fighting paladin, paladin commander etc etc etc ..

 

Every decision in "level up" shoud make a big difrence, fighting offencive fighter shoud be way difrent then fighting tank and even "balanced fighter" shoud be diffrent then these two.

[Karkarov]

Not going to happen Indra.  Cookie Cutter Builds aren't too ARPG for anyone, even Call of Duty has them.  As long as there is gear, levels, and some form of skill/class selection there will always be cookie cutter builds.  Even if the game is perfectly balanced and they actually aren't really "better" than other builds they will still emerge and people will still insist they are the only right way to play.

[Cubiq]

I think there probably will be some powerful builds that will be better than the rest, like in any game, but the difference here is that it's not a multiplayer game, and you don't need to strive to be better than all the other players. So even if there will be some better combinations on how to make your character, you don't need to do it, since the game dificulty will probably be balanced around average builds.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Not going to happen Indra.  Cookie Cutter Builds aren't too ARPG for anyone, even Call of Duty has them.  As long as there is gear, levels, and some form of skill/class selection there will always be cookie cutter builds.  Even if the game is perfectly balanced and they actually aren't really "better" than other builds they will still emerge and people will still insist they are the only right way to play.

 Deep down, I know that you are right. Still I hope that there will be plenty of them, at least, and perhaps they can make the best ones not too far off the charts as well. It really seems Josh & Co are going all-in in their efforts to make the game balanced in this regard.

[Sarex]

There is a simple solution to this. Either you stop looking up builds on the internet (shame on you /joking) or we destroy the internet.

 

Joking aside this is easily solved by post launch support. If a build is found to be OP it can easily be nerfed with a patch. As for the perceived  OP builds, well no one can help you with that.

[Kjaamor]

The truth is that if everyone is special then no-one is.

 

Some builds will be better. You will look them up and probably use them. The end.

[Karkarov]

There is a simple solution to this. Either you stop looking up builds on the internet (shame on you /joking) or we destroy the internet.

 

Joking aside this is easily solved by post launch support. If a build is found to be OP it can easily be nerfed with a patch. As for the perceived  OP builds, well no one can help you with that.

It isn't even really looking up builds.  Most games are badly balanced.  I will borrow Alpha Protocol again.  There really really WAS a "best" build to use to beat that game and it was obvious to anyone who played it and experimented with all weapons.  Most games fall into this trap, if you know the mechanics and study them your research just shows that build X simply is better so you just go with it and don't really need to "look it up" to know that.

 

Games like Dark Souls and Demon's Souls on the other hand are balanced really really well.  However the internet will still insist if you want to be the "best build" you must start as one of these classes, use these weapons, have at least these many points in these stats, etc etc.

[Ulquiorra]

I think that the best way to rebalance game shoud not lay in "power" of classes but tactics. If you are a mage it whoud be reasanable that at max lvl you are uverpowerd. But if you get to confident and go without any stategy you might find situation tat simple rogue put you down with a dagger in a back.

 

Thats what i think, but makeing fully "balanced" classes is not a solution becouse if we balance everybody we will get Diablo 3, where all classes are almost the same. The good way to make game baralced is to make sure that you always need some classes to fully discover whole world. Rogue for traps, locks and sneaking, mage for walking cannon, warrior for acting as a wall to your team.

 

But there always shoud be someone you coud not handle alone, for example mage-hunter vs. mages, mages vs. enemys resistant to sword, rogues for killing enemy mages etc.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Ulquiorra: I wouldn't say they are all the same, but there are no choices. It's an extreme case of bare-bone toon dolls - everything is item-based.

 

I love huge complex systems where I can try to tinker with various builds and such. In that regard, I'm really enjoying PoE's huge, but cumbersome passive skill-tree. I wouldn't dream just picking one of the cookie cutter builds there, as that would destroy all the fun. I'd like to make a build on my own, one that can make it at least decently through Merciless and beyond.

 

What I want to avoid is what Karkarov brought up: A situ where there's just one uber-build that rules them all.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

There really isn't a way to avoid having a build that is better than others. Now, it is possible to make other builds actually viable, and I don't see it as a choice between "Min-Max Hero" or "everyone is the same".

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

Josh has stated that that's one of his primary design goals with the character system. So as intentions go, I think things are good. We will find out just how good a designer he is when the game comes out, of course. Personally I'm not too worried on that score.

 

In all fairness, though, Obsidian's previous works did not really convince me on that front.

Alpha Protocol was... well, balanced in the respect that every build had the potential to become ridiculously overpowered and steamroll everything except f***ing Brayko, but generally, pistols were way more powerful than anything else.

KotOR 2 had the expanded lightsaber customization system, which made it possible to tear pretty much anything apart in one round... if you used multiattacks, because power attack was generally useless, and criticals weren't significantly better. Force Lightning also functioned as an insta-win button.

Of FNV, I can't say too much, because I've modded it to hell, but I find it telling that I had to install a mod that TRIPLED the damage of firearms in order for the opposition to be actually able to hurt me. Without ever putting points on Endurance.

 

Since their games were always more focused on story, I never had a problem with this, but based on what I've seen so far, I really have my doubts about them delivering that "ultimate tactical combat" experience. But that's a thing I can live without.

 

None of those games were really intended to be like the IE games, though.  IWD, IWD2, and BG2 are more in-line with what we're trying to do in PE.

[J.E. Sawyer]

There really isn't a way to avoid having a build that is better than others. Now, it is possible to make other builds actually viable, and I don't see it as a choice between "Min-Max Hero" or "everyone is the same".

 

My goal with balancing choices in PE is to promote viability rather than to eliminate *~ power buildz ~*.  If we spend time implementing options that are so obviously bad that no one (or almost no one) will take them, no one benefits.

[Ulquiorra]

My goal with balancing choices in PE is to promote viability rather than to eliminate *~ power buildz ~*.  If we spend time implementing options that are so obviously bad that no one (or almost no one) will take them, no one benefits.

 

 

Yeah the "non-benefiting" atributes from NWN2 (and previosly nwn1) or IWD2 where wery annoying. Expecionaly if fighter class always ended in fullplate warrior having two handed weapon for Weapon Master or shield and weapon from dvarwen defender. I hope that if i chose warior and in game there will be another warior i have oportunity for being waaaay difrent then he is, thats not mean i MUST be better, being defrent meat im sometimes better sometimes worse then he is ...

 

Secoundly i hope that "ALL" abilitys will be not bugged or "thrash" like, i hope that all abilitis that some class can take are meaning something.

[Tsuga C]

My goal with balancing choices in PE is to promote viability rather than to eliminate *~ power buildz ~*.  If we spend time implementing options that are so obviously bad that no one (or almost no one) will take them, no one benefits.

So long as "balancing" doesn't render our choices near meaningless in the name of egalitarianism, I'm right there with you.

[Lephys]

So long as "balancing" doesn't render our choices near meaningless in the name of egalitarianism, I'm right there with you.

I suspect it's not about the heavily-used "nerfing" of "too good" options to bring them down to the other options' levels, but, rather, to simply quality-check the "obviously not too good" options and make sure they're at least in the same ballpark as the blatantly-good options, or aren't in the game at all.

 

A lot of times, the builds themselves are mechanically sound and comparable to one another, but the game's content renders them unviable. Like... a Speech skill that costs the same points as a Swordsmanship skill. If there are only about 6 times you ever need to use the Speech skill, and/or you get some of the same rewards as you would with the Swordsmanship skill (even if it's "You get THIS +1 sword as a reward for being so persuasive in instance X, and you get THIS +1 sword from killing that guy you could've diplomacized), then it's blatantly an inferior build. You already know (for this style of game) that roughly 60+% of the game is going to benefit from combat. So, if MAYBE 10% of it offers you any use of Speech, whatsoever, then spending 10 points on Speech in lieu of Swordsmanship is objectively less viable. You're getting less for your point-money.

 

Or, not even straying out of pure-combat skills... you take a weapon proficiency, and there are only 3 of that weapon in the entire game available to you. Versus some other weapon proficiency, of which weapon there are 30 different variants. Less viable.

 

It's not about making sure Speech plays EXACTLY the same amount of a part in the game as Swordsmanship, or making sure there are 30 of every weapon... it's just about making sure they're comparable. You should be able to feel like you've gotten your money's worth out of either option, throughout a given playthrough.

[Karkarov]

Or, not even straying out of pure-combat skills... you take a weapon proficiency, and there are only 3 of that weapon in the entire game available to you. Versus some other weapon proficiency, of which weapon there are 30 different variants. Less viable.

This is a REALLLY good point.  I bought the just out Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition from Beamdog and wanted my main character (fighter) to go a different route than normal.  I thought, hey I bet bastard sword and off hand short sword or shield might be cool?  I am not dumb though and did my due diligence.  Come to find out there are hardly any bastard swords in the game and the best bastard sword is a joke compared to even the second or third best long sword or top two great swords.  If I went that route I literally gimped myself simply because the game did not have a great end game bastard sword... period.

[Lephys]

This is a REALLLY good point.  I bought the just out Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition from Beamdog and wanted my main character (fighter) to go a different route than normal.  I thought, hey I bet bastard sword and off hand short sword or shield might be cool?  I am not dumb though and did my due diligence.  Come to find out there are hardly any bastard swords in the game and the best bastard sword is a joke compared to even the second or third best long sword or top two great swords.  If I went that route I literally gimped myself simply because the game did not have a great end game bastard sword... period.

 

Yeah, and when "equally viable" starts getting tossed around, people often think "Oh, great... they're going to just bring the long swords down to where the bastard swords are," instead of imagining the bastard swords brought up to where the long swords are. Both methods result in equal viability of a given weapon type, but the latter leaves you with no lacking types, rather than two lacking types. 8P

 

But yeah... sometimes it's not really the system's fault; it's the content's. Much more easily fixable than when it's the system's fault.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

There really isn't a way to avoid having a build that is better than others. Now, it is possible to make other builds actually viable, and I don't see it as a choice between "Min-Max Hero" or "everyone is the same".

 

My goal with balancing choices in PE is to promote viability rather than to eliminate *~ power buildz ~*.  If we spend time implementing options that are so obviously bad that no one (or almost no one) will take them, no one benefits.

 

So I take it there will be nothing like the BG2 Invoker? If so, that sounds fantastic.

[Mor]

Not going to happen Indra.  Cookie Cutter Builds aren't too ARPG for anyone, even Call of Duty has them.  As long as there is gear, levels, and some form of skill/class selection there will always be cookie cutter builds.  Even if the game is perfectly balanced and they actually aren't really "better" than other builds they will still emerge and people will still insist they are the only right way to play.

Worst some people insist on playing the "right way" with the wrong skill/class. Making the game more balanced for them require turning the skills/classes into a big blend of the same or make them god like. Hopefully the dev's can find a good balance between unique and power play.

[Kjaamor]

This is a REALLLY good point.  I bought the just out Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition from Beamdog and wanted my main character (fighter) to go a different route than normal.  I thought, hey I bet bastard sword and off hand short sword or shield might be cool?  I am not dumb though and did my due diligence.  Come to find out there are hardly any bastard swords in the game and the best bastard sword is a joke compared to even the second or third best long sword or top two great swords.  If I went that route I literally gimped myself simply because the game did not have a great end game bastard sword... period.

 

Yes, but:

 

1. BG Enhanced Edition is rather the opposite and might be better named BG Unbalanced Edition. In the original, Bastard Swords came under the 'Large Swords' group rather than their own distinctive group.

 

2. Does a longsword wielding fighter do more damage than a bastard sword fighter over the course of the game? That depends upon the route you take through it. If you optimise your path to chase the best longswords in the quickest time possible, then longswords will do more damage. If you don't, then it's less clear. If you give a companion that first longsword +1 and don't fight greywolf then you'll probably do rather more damage with bastard swords. Also, is it more or less beneficial to use bastard swords at the start of the game when things are toughest, iron weapons break and most mobs drop them?

 

3. While you are of course encouraged to play BG however you wish (and on subsequent playthroughs I have played in the same way) to approach BG by first searching through a guide to see what and where all the best weapons are, which party is best and what PC will give you the most power is, irrespective of your preference, not how the game was intended to be played.

Exploration, choice and consequence are key themes of Baldur's Gate, and considering how much every RPG fan and developer seems to praise them we seem to get extremely miffed at imbalance as we're doing our perfect playthrough thanks to gamefaqs. Most of the best weapons in BG will pass unnoticed unless your character is both an avid explorer and a complete psychopath; striding out into the wilderness to threaten other adventurers.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't think that Karakov would be having as much of a problem if BGEE used weapon groups instead of specific weapons for proficiencies, as he could swap between longswords and bastardswords without penalty if one type of weapon was significantly worse. That said, I agree that weapons should be equally represented, in that there shouldn't be one weapon group littered with powerful items and another that is very scarce.

[JFSOCC]

 

Or, not even straying out of pure-combat skills... you take a weapon proficiency, and there are only 3 of that weapon in the entire game available to you. Versus some other weapon proficiency, of which weapon there are 30 different variants. Less viable.

This is a REALLLY good point.  I bought the just out Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition from Beamdog and wanted my main character (fighter) to go a different route than normal.  I thought, hey I bet bastard sword and off hand short sword or shield might be cool?  I am not dumb though and did my due diligence.  Come to find out there are hardly any bastard swords in the game and the best bastard sword is a joke compared to even the second or third best long sword or top two great swords.  If I went that route I literally gimped myself simply because the game did not have a great end game bastard sword... period.

 

this is one of the reasons why I wanted crafting so badly. If you can make your own damn Bastard sword, you don't have to worry about what the game provides, you can provide it yourself.