Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

Bullsh*t.

 

If we had a system like the one Namutree suggested (where 18 = 100% increase in the benefit and 3 = 100% penalty), and we made a rogue with 3 con and 3 might, it would be a bad build. Or more relevantly, it would be just as bad a build as a fighter in BG2 who dumped his Con and Strength all the way.

So do you dislike the presentation as all bonuses, the magnitude of each point spent, or both?

 

I'd agree that magnitude should be increased, but have no feelings about the presentation as I initially pump attributes to 10 anyways.

 

Both. First, yes. The magnitude. It needs to be turbo charged. When the difference between 3 Might and 18 might is less than 5 points of damage for someone wielding a Greatsword, (and it's exactly that way for every stat) then there's no real point. The entire stat system is little more than illusion - something there to make people feel like they're actually engaged in meaningful customization when they really aren't. They're simply fine tuning.

 

Someone here did a thread about his "Muscle Wizard". He was quite happy to discover that after pumping his Might and Con to 18, his Wizard seemed to be pretty effective blasting monsters away on the front lines. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't stat pumping that made his wizard a decent front liner. It was the wizard class itself. he could have dumped his might and con to 3 and he wouldn't have noticed the difference.

 

Second, the presentation... mainly that there's no penalties for stat dumps and no sweet spot in the middle to represent 'standard' (ie. neither bonuses nor penalties). There's just Bonuses, from the bottom to the top.

 

 

Even people that *agree* that both of these are issues still don't understand the implications here. They think it's simply a matter of "oversight" or "hehehe just needs some tweaking!" when both of these, in fact, represent a design goal that Josh Sawyer has been adamant about since Day 1: That New players who don't understand the system should feel free to character build however they want without fear of ending up with tragically weak builds.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pretty young when BG and BG2 came out. Mostly my memories of BG revolve around looking at the art and dying on repeat before my older sibling would kick me out of their room. However I did pick it up and play it recently.

 

You know what BG has that I would love to see in this game?

 

Attack animations!

 

My monk in BG punched and kicked his little heart out. My monk in PoE only knows one fighting move... I'm kind of sad for him. Even if he uses his special abilities... He only does the single move.

 

I bet he gets made fun of in monk school.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pretty young when BG and BG2 came out. Mostly my memories of BG revolve around looking at the art and dying on repeat before my older sibling would kick me out of their room. However I did pick it up and play it recently.

 

You know what BG has that I would love to see in this game?

 

Attack animations!

 

My monk in BG punched and kicked his little heart out. My monk in PoE only knows one fighting move... I'm kind of sad for him. Even if he uses his special abilities... He only does the single move.

 

I bet he gets made fun of in monk school.

This is still the beta and more animations might be added.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont get why some people need to spam every thread with negativity

I agree. Now if we could only go back and unpost/erase your fanatical and repeated BG2 bashing on this thread, we'd be able to cite you as the honest voice of reason!

 

But until then, nice to meet you Mr. Pot. I'm Kettle. You're Black.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullsh*t.

If we had a system like the one Namutree suggested (where 18 = 100% increase in the benefit and 3 = 100% penalty), and we made a rogue with 3 con and 3 might, it would be a bad build. Or more relevantly, it would be just as bad a build as a fighter in BG2 who dumped his Con and Strength all the way.

 

So you're against the idea, then?

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone here did a thread about his "Muscle Wizard". He was quite happy to discover that after pumping his Might and Con to 18, his Wizard seemed to be pretty effective blasting monsters away on the front lines. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't stat pumping that made his wizard a decent front liner. It was the wizard class itself. he could have dumped his might and con to 3 and he wouldn't have noticed the difference.

 

Have you tried it or are you just talking out of your khyber?

 

I dare you. Create two wizards. Pump CON and RES on one, and dump CON and RES on the other. Kit both up in brigandine and put them on the front line. Play on Normal or Hard.

 

Then come back and tell us, hand on heart, that there was no difference between the two.

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both. First, yes. The magnitude. It needs to be turbo charged. When the difference between 3 Might and 18 might is less than 5 points of damage for someone wielding a Greatsword, (and it's exactly that way for every stat) then there's no real point. The entire stat system is little more than illusion - something there to make people feel like they're actually engaged in meaningful customization when they really aren't. They're simply fine tuning.

So what would you say would be a good value for Might?

Judging from what we've seen of the weapons, +5% would be about +1 Max damage per Might for the least powerful weapons.

 

Second, the presentation... mainly that there's no penalties for stat dumps and no sweet spot in the middle to represent 'standard' (ie. neither bonuses nor penalties). There's just Bonuses, from the bottom to the top.

So you would prefer the effects of stats below 10 to be shown as a negative, even if there is no functional difference?

 

That sounds fair to me, in fact it would help the inexperienced know that their character would be sub-optimal in that area.

  • Like 2

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Someone here did a thread about his "Muscle Wizard". He was quite happy to discover that after pumping his Might and Con to 18, his Wizard seemed to be pretty effective blasting monsters away on the front lines. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't stat pumping that made his wizard a decent front liner. It was the wizard class itself. he could have dumped his might and con to 3 and he wouldn't have noticed the difference.

 

Have you tried it or are you just talking out of your khyber?

 

I dare you. Create two wizards. Pump CON and RES on one, and dump CON and RES on the other. Kit both up in brigandine and put them on the front line. Play on Normal or Hard.

 

Then come back and tell us, hand on heart, that there was no difference between the two.

 

Yes PrimeJunta I tried it. And if there were any con or might based differences between the two I didn't notice them. When my priest healed me, I healed up all the way, just like my 3 con wizard. And when I smacked people with my stiletto, my damage looked exactly the same (although to be honest, I didn't have a Microsoft Excel sheet open to literally compare)

 

What made the big difference was that the Wizard class in this game lets me wear heavy armor and a shield to compliment Arcane veil and mirror image

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes PrimeJunta I tried it. And if there were any con or might based differences between the two I didn't notice them. When my priest healed me, I healed up all the way, just like my 18 con wizard. And when I smacked people with my stiletto, my damage looked exactly the same (although to be honest, I didn't have a Microsoft Excel sheet open to literally compare)

What made the big difference was that as a Wizard I was able to wear heavy armor and a shield to compliment Arcane veil. That plus the utterly liberating feeling of being able to cast the cone/column-based spells without having to worry about frying everyone else in my party made me feel like my muscle wizard was actually more powerful than my nerd-wizard.

 

You smacked people with your stiletto? Why? Your base melee Accuracy is terrible, all you'll do is graze anyway, so nothing's going to make more than a decimal-point difference. Look at spell damage.

 

IMO the real difference is in RES. Your muscle wizard who dumps RES will get interrupted, like, a LOT, if standing in the front line. This is because casting time is up to 12 seconds and your opponents will have time to get in a lot of hits, any of which can cause an Interrupt.

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

I miss that big solid HUD from BG2. As far as I know; there's no way to get that in the beta. I think we might get it later.

 

Also, the event tracker(Or whatever it's called) really should be in the middle instead of the far right. The IE games did that and it made feedback much easier.

 

I know this thread is called, "More like BG2 please", but I treat it as, "More like IE please."

Edited by Namutree
  • Like 1

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would prefer the effects of stats below 10 to be shown as a negative, even if there is no functional difference?

 

That sounds fair to me, in fact it would help the inexperienced know that their character would be sub-optimal in that area.

LOL well no. I'd want there to be a functional difference. Ok, just going off the top of my head(numbers are probably way off) I believe Rogues get 17 health per level (base) after level 1. If we were to impose Con penalties on a rogue, then a rogue with 3 con would get a percentage of that deducted every time they level up.

 

Same thing with Might. if the base damage on a Pike is 27-42, then someone with 3 might would do less than that with his Pike.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you would prefer the effects of stats below 10 to be shown as a negative, even if there is no functional difference?

 

That sounds fair to me, in fact it would help the inexperienced know that their character would be sub-optimal in that area.

LOL well no. I'd want there to be a functional difference. Ok, just going off the top of my head. I believe Rogues get a 17 health per level after level 1. If we were to impose Con penalties on a rogue, then a rogue with 3 con would get a percentage of that deducted every time they level up.

 

Same thing with Might. if the base damage on a Pike is 27-42, then someone with 3 might would do less than that with his Pike.

 

The functional difference is that the builds can be a bit more extreme.

 

Stupid wizards are actually stupid; for example. 

Edited by Namutree
  • Like 1

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you would prefer the effects of stats below 10 to be shown as a negative, even if there is no functional difference?

 

That sounds fair to me, in fact it would help the inexperienced know that their character would be sub-optimal in that area.

LOL well no. I'd want there to be a functional difference. Ok, just going off the top of my head. I believe Rogues get a 17 health per level after level 1. If we were to impose Con penalties on a rogue, then a rogue with 3 con would get a percentage of that deducted every time they level up.

 

Same thing with Might. if the base damage on a Pike is 27-42, then someone with 3 might would do less than that with his Pike.

 

 

He exactly discriped what you want, is it so hard to understand? It makes zero difference if you have a sword dealing 10 damage + might bonus or if it does 20 damage at 10 might +/- might modifier...

 

 

The functional difference is that the builds can be a bit more extreme.

 

 

No they cant because its mathematical the same.

Edited by Mayama
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK last attempt

 

Might starts at 1 and every points add bonuses

 

Sword 10 damage

 

10 + 1   might = 11 damage

10 + 2   might = 12 damage

10 + 3   might = 13 damage 

10 + 4   might = 14 damage

10 + 5   might = 15 damage

10 + 6   might = 16 damage

10 + 7   might = 17 damage

10 + 8   might = 18 damage 

10 + 9   might = 19 damage

10 + 10 might = 20 damage

 

OR

 

 

The average might gives zero bonus, less substracts, more adds bonuses

 

Sword 15 damage

 

15 -  4 might = 11 damage

15 -  3 might = 12 damage

15 -  2 might = 13 damage 

15 -  1 might = 14 damage

15 + 0 might = 15 damage

15 + 1 might = 16 damage

15 + 2 might = 17 damage

15 + 3 might = 18 damage 

15 + 4 might = 19 damage

15 + 5 might = 20 damage

 

It is the freaking same, only writen in a different way

Edited by Mayama
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK last attempt

 

Sword 10 damage

 

10 + 1   might = 11 damage

10 + 2   might = 12 damage

10 + 3   might = 13 damage 

10 + 4   might = 14 damage

10 + 5   might = 15 damage

10 + 6   might = 16 damage

10 + 7   might = 17 damage

10 + 8   might = 18 damage 

10 + 9   might = 19 damage

10 + 10 might = 10 damage

 

OR

 

Sword 15 damage

 

15 -  4 might = 11 damage

15 -  3 might = 12 damage

15 -  2 might = 13 damage 

15 -  1 might = 14 damage

15 + 0 might = 15 damage

15 + 1 might = 16 damage

15 + 2 might = 17 damage

15 + 3 might = 18 damage 

15 + 4 might = 19 damage

15 + 5 might = 20 damage

 

It is the freaking same, only writen in a different way

Oh. I was thinking of something else. My bad...

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that what Namutree is saying is that you can then double the absolute values of the adjustments without affecting the average, making the builds more extreme. If all the adjustments are positive numbers, doubling the range will also raise the average, making everybody more powerful.

 

Edit: oh, he wasn't. Sorry...

Edited by PrimeJunta
  • Like 2

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you would prefer the effects of stats below 10 to be shown as a negative, even if there is no functional difference?

 

That sounds fair to me, in fact it would help the inexperienced know that their character would be sub-optimal in that area.

LOL well no. I'd want there to be a functional difference. Ok, just going off the top of my head(numbers are probably way off) I believe Rogues get 17 health per level after level 1. If we were to impose Con penalties on a rogue, then a rogue with 3 con would get a percentage of that deducted every time they level up.

 

Same thing with Might. if the base damage on a Pike is 27-42, then someone with 3 might would do less than that with his Pike.

By "no functional difference", I meant presentation is the only difference.

 

So the cosmetic difference between showing +15% damage at Might 3(using the current method) and -35% damage at Might 3 if 10 is used as a neutral base.

Edited by KaineParker

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that what Namutree is saying is that you can then double the absolute values of the adjustments without affecting the average, making the builds more extreme. If all the adjustments are positive numbers, doubling the range will also raise the average, making everybody more powerful.

 

Edit: oh, he wasn't. Sorry...

Exactly.

 

I'm very confused right now. I missed something...:(

Edited by Namutree

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that what Namutree is saying is that you can then double the absolute values of the adjustments without affecting the average, making the builds more extreme. If all the adjustments are positive numbers, doubling the range will also raise the average, making everybody more powerful.

 

Edit: oh, he wasn't. Sorry...

Exactly.

 

I'm very confused right now. I missed something... :(

 

 

Well only if you assume that the starting value was the same. My post wasnt directed at you manutree it was directed at Stun because he troled for around 3 pages now.

Edited by Mayama
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think that what Namutree is saying is that you can then double the absolute values of the adjustments without affecting the average, making the builds more extreme. If all the adjustments are positive numbers, doubling the range will also raise the average, making everybody more powerful.

 

Edit: oh, he wasn't. Sorry...

Exactly.

 

I'm very confused right now. I missed something...:(

Its late, I think most of us in the states need sleep.

  • Like 1

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we get to place our portraits vertically like in the IE games. I really like that over horizontal rows.

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet merciful F*ck.

 

I said NEGATIVE. I'm advocating real penalties for stats that are dumped to 3.

 

I'm advocating a system similar to BG2. In BG2 if a weapon does 10 damage (base), and you have 3 strength, you're only going to do 6 damage (assuming the game lets you lift that weapon in the first place). Because 3 str = -4 damage penalty.

 

So lets redo your chart, Mayama.

 

 

Might starts at 1.

Sword base damage is 10

 

10 + 1   might = 1 damage

10 + 2   might = 2 damage

10 + 3   might = 3 damage 

10 + 4   might = 4 damage

10 + 5   might = 5 damage

10 + 6   might = 6 damage

10 + 7   might = 7 damage

10 + 8   might = 8 damage 

10 + 9   might = 9 damage

10 + 10 might = 10 damage

 

And then the bonuses begin

 

10 +  11 might = 11 damage

10 +  12 might = 12 damage

10 +  13 might = 13 damage 

10 +  14 might = 14 damage

10 + 15 might = 15 damage

10 + 16 might = 16 damage

10 + 17 might = 17 damage

10 + 18 might = 18 damage 

10 + 19 might = 19 damage

10 + 20 might = 20 damage

 

Thus a character with 1 might is dealing just 1 damage when swinging a 10-damage sword, while a character with 20 might is dealing 20 damage with that same sword. I call this a functional difference. Not just a presentation difference.

 

But Note: I would also recommend that since PoE operates on a much higher Health wavelength (spiders have 150 health. And even a 5th level wizard has almost 100 health IIRC) that the bonuses and penalties to damage be suitably adjusted.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may chime in on the stat discussion. You can't really judge CON at the moment because every class have the same starting stamina/health and progression (except ranger which is bugged). They haven't implemented the different stamina/health gains and starting points on the classes. This makes the wizard/cipher really OP because they get a huge increase in stamina/health compared to what they should have.

 

Check my bug report out for a look.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67360-wrong-stat-calculations/?do=findComment&comment=1485180

 

Also the stamina/health % gain isn't applied on every level but on the total, if you look at the bb characters.

Edited by Ninjaen
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I alone in having an opinion that goes something like: No way on this earth I would have backed any RPG tied to the awful, unbalanced and soul destroying systems of early D&D?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

Edited by JRRNeiklot
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I alone in having an opinion that goes something like: No way on this earth I would have backed any RPG tied to the awful, unbalanced and soul destroying systems of early D&D? I played that way for 24 years, lost potential players to the inherent and undecipherable class progression and balance differences and there's no way on this earth I'm going back to it, unless its the last game in town, which it won't be if I have any say in it whatsoever.

 

I would have backed it if the concept was good, but that would have been despite the D&D, not because of it.

 

I'm an enormous fan of the worlds of D&D--many of them, anyway--but not a fan of the systems and mechanics.

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...