Transparency in Talents

[Pray]

1:07:29

http://www.twitch.tv/archive/archive_popout?id=557643505&t=4373s

 

At 1:07:29 you can see the Paladin purchasing a Talent.

 

I just want to please ask that you guys strongly consider inserting ADVANCED information stating EXACTLY what the talent is doing.

 

So far it currently only says, on this example:

 

Intense Flames: Augment's the power of the Paladin's Flames of Devotion, increasing it's damage.

 

But by how much? this is not transparent or detailed whatsoever, and for people like myself, who want to play on higher difficulties, not very useful at all. I know this is just beta, and it may already be in the works, but things like this leave me very frustrated in games such as these, when the game is working against me. Ambiguity is not fun when you are trying to min/max your champion to take on the hardest difficulties, or when trying to choose between talents.

 

A small but important gripe. Absolutely excited to play this game.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Pray

[Kjaamor]

Agreed. In a RAND-based game, I like transparency in my combat mechanics. In what has been presented so far I've seen several instances where combat mechanics are vaguely hinted at.

[GreyFox]

I think one of the devs made a post saying they were going to add descriptions to things like talents, ability scores, and other areas where a tooltip would be useful.

 

In the E3 demo there was also nothing really shown so the viewers had no idea what things did....but we don't know what build the beta is compared to a build that could have descriptions.

Edited August 13, 2014 by GreyFox

[Grand_Commander13]

+1 to this. Dragon Age: Origins had terrible tooltips. The Detailed Tooltips mod actually tells you the formula each skill uses for damage, and so makes it far easier to compare like to like when picking skills.

[IRMA]

Absolutely agree.

Loved how in bg2 you had specified area of effect + exact time the spell is gonna last + damage done (remember like 4 + 1 per level of caster and similar) + how can target defend against it based on their stats; same with armor and weapons, really well described in compare to fallout2 for example (where, on the other hand, it had it's sense).

I consider this to be a must-have.

Edited August 13, 2014 by IRMA

[Lephys]

Sixthed.

 

I kinda like it when the two are present, but kept separated. Sort of a lore-consistent basic description of the ability -- in the OP example, it would be more like "The Paladin has gained a level of focus in his fervor that causes his Flames of Devotion to burn much more brightly." THEN, there's a strictly addressed-to-the-player mechanics breakdown. You know, "Increases the damage modifier from Flames of Devotion by X%," etc. All the little mechanical details.

 

The reason being is that, if there's absolutely NO lore-esque description, it just feels like that's missing. So there's usually at least a partial one, but when you mix them, it feels a little weird. Like if you're telling a story, and you say "And then, the mighty Wizard summoned a magnificent demon, whose attack power was precisely seven hundred twenty three, and in doing so, he used up one of his spells-per-day, u_u..."

 

Any effect of the sort of in-lore description is pretty shattered once you toss pure game mechanic terms in there.

 

It's not a huge deal or anything. It's a very tiny deal. But, it's still nice, for what it's worth. Like how weapon description pages work. You have a technical listing of their damage type and range and all that, in mechanical/numerical terms. Then, you have a separate description. It might say "This was blessed by such-and-such, and seeks out the flesh of ogres." Then, the mechanical spec-list will say "+3 damage versus ogres." They're kept separate.

[Ink Blot]

I'll throw in my vote here as well (although I believe, as noted, that the devs said they'd provide this kind of detail in the tool tips). I hate not knowing exactly what a skill/talent/bonus/increase is doing in a game.

[Kjaamor]

I kinda like it when the two are present, but kept separated. Sort of a lore-consistent basic description of the ability -- in the OP example, it would be more like "The Paladin has gained a level of focus in his fervor that causes his Flames of Devotion to burn much more brightly." THEN, there's a strictly addressed-to-the-player mechanics breakdown. You know, "Increases the damage modifier from Flames of Devotion by X%," etc. All the little mechanical details.

 

The reason being is that, if there's absolutely NO lore-esque description, it just feels like that's missing. So there's usually at least a partial one, but when you mix them, it feels a little weird. Like if you're telling a story, and you say "And then, the mighty Wizard summoned a magnificent demon, whose attack power was precisely seven hundred twenty three, and in doing so, he used up one of his spells-per-day, u_u..."

 

I see where you're coming from, although personally I have found games that do this to be more immersion-breaking. I prefer the mix of lore and stats because I feel the lore works best when mixed into the stats. When the war of "figuratively this" then "literally that" takes place, the figurative becomes much less important and you end up paying less attention to it then you might've done had it been weaved in. See every MMO ever for examples.

[Lephys]

*Shrug*. I just feel like it's keeping things in their respective contexts, is all.

 

It's almost like character dialogue, versus a UI description. It's pretty lame when you talk to some NPC, and they say "Be careful! His poison will deal 30% of your Health per tick!". Which is why it doesn't happen. Yet, you don't just want people in the world to never ever comment on things that involve numbers and mechanics.

 

Just... sometimes you kinda want to stay in-world but have something described, and sometimes you want to look at the numbers. *shrug* Doesn't mean you always want to do both at once, is all.

 

I agree that games tend to not do this very well, but it's nice when it's done well; when the lore-descriptions are sort of buffers, and it's always easy to go straight to the technical stuff when you so choose. I think really, the only flaw in previous renditions of this approach has been the disconnect between the two information sets.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Lephys

[Pray]

I feel Lephys has it right. There are indeed some people who will not want to be bogged down actually reading what an ability does, other than the lore about it. "Oh, okay, that makes me do more damage," instead of "+5 damage per level or 10% increase."

 

So if we seperate the two, it's the best of both worlds.

[Kjaamor]

From what has been suggested, it looks like this will be seperated in PoE through the tooltip system. I still maintain that the disconnect is evidently inherent in the model.

 

The IE games used both systems for different things. Weapons and armour came under the system you advocate, while spells and feats came under the system I am talking about. While I didn't find the weapon and armour immersion-breaking per se, I now couldn't tell you a great deal about the weapons in terms of their lore description. In terms of spells, I would be much better placed to tell you what was occurring in lore terms, because it was of practical concern rather than just flavour.

 

Of course, neither such system prevented me from playing the IE games, so I suppose if it is handled well it should be a very minor issue.

 

In other news:

 

It's almost like character dialogue, versus a UI description. It's pretty lame when you talk to some NPC, and they say "Be careful! His poison will deal 30% of your Health per tick!". Which is why it doesn't happen. Yet, you don't just want people in the world to never ever comment on things that involve numbers and mechanics.

 

Just a minor point but in terms of illustrating arguments, similies rarely support a point and more often than not merely bloat the text. I've been meaning to raise this point with yourself for years now, but the above is a special example.

 

"It's almost like"

 

Literally meaning...

 

"It isn't like"

 

I think a good rule of thumb is to replace any "it's like" in an argument with "it isn't" and see if it is a sentence/paragraph you still wish to keep.

[Silent Winter]

"It's almost like"

 

Literally meaning...

 

"It isn't like"

Well - "It isn't like" suggests no similarity, whereas "It's almost like" is a common colloquial introduction of something that is similar but acknowledged to not be exactly alike.

Taking things literally isn't the way a lot of communication is intended.

 

I think Lephy's example in this point is illustrative of the kind of disconnect he wants (or rather combination he doesn't want).

Similes and Metaphors are a part of communication and can and do support a point - the problem lies when people argue the simile/metaphor rather than the point it's trying to illustrate.

 

Sure, figurative language *could* be taken out and leave the point intact ... but it'd be less fun to talk in that world.

[Kjaamor]

It depends if you're trying to be poetic or are trying to argue a point. If you're trying to argue a point, and Lephys is, then inaccurate figuratives undermine that point.

 

I'm not asking for a ban on figuratives, I'm merely pointing out that using logical fallacies - and inaccurate similies are just that - undermines your argument.

[Kiel29]

Based on years of lurking, I've seen that Lephys, figuratively, likes to literally argue a point poetically.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Ninth or tenth or whatever!

[Sabotin]

How about something like what mobas usually do:

Magic Missile Wanabe

You shoot orbs of pure magic out of your hands which strike a target dealing damage.

 

Damage per missile: 1d4

Number of missiles: one per 3 levels

Damage type: Crushing

The "standard" info like spell level and cast speed could be put right under the name like in the IE games

 

Another way to go would be to have the description include dynamic numbers, which would show the formula used when you mouse over them.

[Lephys]

Just a minor point but in terms of illustrating arguments, similies rarely support a point and more often than not merely bloat the text. I've been meaning to raise this point with yourself for years now, but the above is a special example.

 

"It's almost like"

 

Literally meaning...

 

"It isn't like"

 

I think a good rule of thumb is to replace any "it's like" in an argument with "it isn't" and see if it is a sentence/paragraph you still wish to keep.

I agree about the specific phrase "almost like." I probably shouldn't say that anymore. What I mean, I suppose, is simply "It's like."

 

But, I don't think that says anything about a lack of usefulness in comparisons. Do you, or do you not, want your NPCs to directly reference game mechanics? And why/why not? Those answers will tell us if my comparison was useful or not.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Lephys

[Kjaamor]

As I said, I would prefer that feats directly referenced game mechanics in their description. If it helps, I can give you my opinion on why I would or wouldn't want romance in game, or any other distinct question from the original point, but I don't suppose it is going to help to justify your comparison.

[Lephys]

I'm not trying to justify my comparison. I'm just asking a simple question. Obviously, you aren't required to answer it, but I think the toying with me is a bit uncalled for. *shrug*

 

Also, that's a lovely re-iteration of your opinion on feat text, but, for the record, I want them to directly reference mechanics, also. I simply would like for lore descriptions, AND direct-mechanics breakdowns, where applicable. Maybe that wasn't clear from my initial statements.

[Kjaamor]

Your point on the matter was quite clear, and I can both support and understand your desire for both, and also understand - even while it wouldn't be my personal preference - for a description for feats to be unsullied by statistics mixed into the lore. As I say, the IE games used this for weapons and it didn't affect my enjoyment of them to an extent where I feel the need to worry too much about PoE in this regard.

 

But the description of abstracts of player progression for gameplay purposes are not the same as npc dialogue, and the presence of statistics in the former has no bearing on the appropriateness of statistics in the latter (and vice versa).

[Lephys]

They're not the same. They're similar.

 

Annnnywho... you understand, and you disagree. That's fine. No worries.

 

I think we can both agree on the original sentiment of this thread, which is what matters more here, I suppose.

 

The player should never have to guess the exact mechanical effect of something they're actively (and permanently) choosing for their character.

[Zansatsu]

Harrumph harrumph harrumph!

[Silent Winter]

It depends if you're trying to be poetic or are trying to argue a point. If you're trying to argue a point, and Lephys is, then inaccurate figuratives undermine that point.

 

I'm not asking for a ban on figuratives, I'm merely pointing out that using logical fallacies - and inaccurate similies are just that - undermines your argument.

fair enough -I'm also only asking for people to remember to argue the point, not the simile/metaphor (though using the metaphor to help point out where the person has misunderstood the point is fine).

Different people have a habit of expressing themselves differently, it's often hard to change that.

I have a tendency to ramble on past my point sometimes, like now, and end up burying my point under the news that we can craft chocolate biscuits in the game.

[salo]

Diablo III did it pretty well, iirc, with more verbose descriptions when you were in the skill menu and then mouse over tool tips that could be toggled between "standard" (a plain-text description) and "detailed" (description of skill effects with all the numbers laid out). I agree with most of the people in this thread that transparency should be available for for the players that want it, and I personally like when it's split up into a plain text/lore section and a meaty effects section just because it makes it easier to find what I'm looking for.