"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[SergioCQH]

Even though the "no bad builds" policy of making all attributes equally important for all classes sounded somewhat good on paper, I think its execution has proved a failure. There are still bad builds and dump stats, and even worse than before, it's the same stats for ALL classes now.

 

Every character I make has 18 strength(or more). No matter if it's a fighter, a cleric, or a wizard, it's got to have big muscles because big muscles just make everyone more effective at what they do.

 

Every character I make has minimum perception and resolve because these stats don't do anything.

 

Almost every character I make has maximum dexterity except for support characters.

 

Intellect does nothing for characters that don't use area effects, status effects, or DoTs.

 

Constitution does nothing for characters that don't fight up front.

 

With the old attribute systems that we are familiar with, each class had a cookie-cutter stat distribution. With PoE's system, EVERY CHARACTER has the same cookie-cutter stat distribution. I think that's a step backwards, not forwards.

[Matt516]

I have to somewhat agree. I'm also not sure if I'm sold on the whole "all stats add percentage of something and that's it" system. Seems awfully Torchlight-esque... and Torchlight was a great game, but an IE game successor should have meaningful, important stats. Not tiny marginal increases. In the IE games, one stat point was very important. In these.. hardly.

[Shdy314]

In the IE games, one stat point was very important. In these.. hardly.

Uh what?!

One stat point was almost never meaningful.

Sure if that one point brought you up to 18/00 strength or gave you the ability to dual class then that was a very good point.

 

But if you are honestly trying to tell us going from 10 to an 11 was very important... 

 

 

Every character I make has 18 STRENGTH(or more). No matter if it's a fighter, a cleric, or a wizard, it's got to have big muscles because big muscles just make everyone more effective at what they do.

There is your problem. You've apparently modded in STR. Ok I know you meant might. But it is important to remember this is not DnD and Might is NOT the strength of your muscles. It actually seems to be the strength of your soul.

 

Yes attributes still need balancing. Obsidian said it before they even gave us the beta so you aren't exactly making some sort of startling discovery.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Shdy314

[Cabamacadaf]

I think it's a good idea, it just needs some tweaking to make it work.

[Sensuki]

I also think the idea is good, the implementation leaves much to be desired. I have made many threads on the issues with the attribute system in the past year and pretty much all of my predictions are correct.

 

I think that one design constraint on the system needs to be removed to make it a bit more balanced. Such as adding Deflection back into the mix or possibly recovery time. Perhaps there's this one elusive combat stat that I'm not thinking of yet.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[Waywocket]

Even though the "no bad builds" policy of making all attributes equally important for all classes sounded somewhat good on paper, I think its execution has proved a failure.

 

'No bad builds' has been a design goal of most RPGs, MMOs, and ARPGs for years, and thus far the only times it has been successful has been when the games are simplified to the point that there are no builds, or at least no meaningful differences between them, like the way classes work in WoW now.

 

Diablo 3, in particular, had 'every build should be viable' as one of its principal design goals, and despite a team of hundreds (thousands? the credits went on for about 45 minutes), an unimaginably vast expenditure of money, and several years of playtesting and tweaking, it failed at that goal as completely as it is possible to fail.

 

At this point, whenever a game designer says 'no bad builds', what I actually hear is 'I have unrealistic expectations'. It's always a good idea; it's never a good implementation.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Waywocket

[Namutree]

 

Constitution does nothing for characters that don't fight up front.

 

Yet anyone could fight up front. Give you mage 18 Con then set him up with defense spells and defesive talents (Which I'm sure will be a thing) and presto! Mage tank! Any one can use Constitution. It's all about using the attributes to their strength.

[Answermancer]

Man people here really like their hyperbole, at least in their titles. Everything is apparently either amazing or completely broken and terrible.

 

Anyway, my opinion is that there are issues with the system but they are fixable. The intent was never for every build to be equally good, but rather for every build to be viable.

 

These are very different, you will never build a combat-viable Wizard in D&D with 8 Int, but I definitely think you can build a combat-viable Wizard in PoE with 8 Might.

 

I honestly feel like Might, Dex, Int and even Con to an extent (because health is quite precious in the game) are currently exciting stats that I'd either like for different builds or I'd like to max them all to make an amazing character. Perception and Resolve are broken, but I think they can be fixed.

 

The best I've come up with is still:

• Make Dex give improved recovery time/action speed
• Make Per govern Accuracy as Dex does now
• Make Res give a chance at avoidance (convert enemy glances to misses and hits to glances on the low end, an inverse accuracy/evasion stat if you will)

Edited August 21, 2014 by Answermancer

[Waywocket]

 

The best I've come up with is still:

• Make Dex give improved recovery time/action speed
• Make Per govern Accuracy as Dex does now
• Make Res give a chance at avoidance (convert enemy glances to misses and hits to glances on the low end, an inverse accuracy/evasion stat if you will)

 

These seem reasonable.

 

Are we all largely agreed that, right now, it feels like the first three stats are the combat stats, and the last three stats are the conversation stats?

[Infiltrator_SF]

I am not a beta participant, but from what I can read there's not too much incentive for certain classes to get stats that are beneficial to them. For example, mage spells benefit from strength, which I find really awkward, unintuitive and superfluous. Str should only matter to mages that engage in physical combat.

[Zansatsu]

 

Even though the "no bad builds" policy of making all attributes equally important for all classes sounded somewhat good on paper, I think its execution has proved a failure.

 

 

'No bad builds' has been a design goal of most RPGs, MMOs, and ARPGs for years, and thus far the only times it has been successful has been when the games are simplified to the point that there are no builds, or at least no meaningful differences between them, like the way classes work in WoW now.

 

Diablo 3, in particular, had 'every build should be viable' as one of its principal design goals, and despite a team of hundreds (thousands? the credits went on for about 45 minutes), an unimaginably vast expenditure of money, and several years of playtesting and tweaking, it failed at that goal as completely as it is possible to fail.

 

At this point, whenever a game designer says 'no bad builds', what I actually hear is 'I have unrealistic expectations'. It's always a good idea; it's never a good implementation.

I agree it seems impossible not to have builds in different classes preferable to others. Once that happens, that's the build most people will go for. The OP is spot on as well. It seems nice in theory but really we all want the same thing, for our warriors hit hard and be hardy, and our wizards to be affective spell casters. I think it works better having predesigned sub class.

[Mrakvampire]

I am not a beta participant, but from what I can read there's not too much incentive for certain classes to get stats that are beneficial to them. For example, mage spells benefit from strength, which I find really awkward, unintuitive and superfluous. Str should only matter to mages that engage in physical combat.

 

Somebody, please give this gentleman glass of your best wine! I'll pay.

[PrimeJunta]

Even though the "no bad builds" policy of making all attributes equally important for all classes sounded somewhat good on paper, I think its execution has proved a failure. There are still bad builds and dump stats, and even worse than before, it's the same stats for ALL classes now.

 

Every character I make has 18 strength(or more). No matter if it's a fighter, a cleric, or a wizard, it's got to have big muscles because big muscles just make everyone more effective at what they do.

 

Every character I make has minimum perception and resolve because these stats don't do anything.

 

Almost every character I make has maximum dexterity except for support characters.

 

Intellect does nothing for characters that don't use area effects, status effects, or DoTs.

 

Constitution does nothing for characters that don't fight up front.

 

With the old attribute systems that we are familiar with, each class had a cookie-cutter stat distribution. With PoE's system, EVERY CHARACTER has the same cookie-cutter stat distribution. I think that's a step backwards, not forwards.

 

PER and RES are currently dumpable, yes. I don't quite agree with the rest of your criticisms.

 

Specifically, you feel that way because you want to play all your characters in a particular way. That's totally fine, but it doesn't mean other styles of character aren't viable.

 

Consider CON. Yes, it is much more important for front-line characters than back-row glass cannons (duh!). Thing is, you can play against type (a lot of the time) and make a perfectly viable front-line wizard. There are a couple of classes which do really need high CON, specifically fighters and barbarians, because their features are so melee-focused.

 

Consider INT. Thing is, all the classes have some duration- or AoE-based effects. Even fighters -- Knockdown. A high INT fighter can use that way more effectively than a low-INT one.

 

So the current cookie-cutter feel comes from the dumpability of PER and RES IMO, which leaves enough points to haul up the others to the point where the differences are fairly small. Fix those and it'll work out fine.

[Bazy]

• "Attribute Balance - Testers have reported that Perception and Resolve are less compelling for their character builds than Might, Constitution, Dexterity, and Intellect. We are discussing different solutions for this."

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66764-update-84-welcome-to-the-backer-beta/

 

[Ahvz]

With the old attribute systems that we are familiar with, each class had a cookie-cutter stat distribution. With PoE's system, EVERY CHARACTER has the same cookie-cutter stat distribution. I think that's a step backwards, not forwards.

 

None of my characters have had stat arrays even remotely close to yours, yet I've been more than successful playing the beta.  

 

Yeah, you can build a wizard and fighter the exact same and win with them both if you play to their strengths. And that was the point. If you can't imagine any other build than what you're using for both of them, that's your playstyle affecting things, not any railroading being done by the current attribute system. 

 

Edit: Per and Res do need a little work.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Ahvz

[Shdy314]

 

Man people here really like their hyperbole, 

Hi! Welcome to the forums. 

It will be the most amazing place you will ever visit in your entire life! Or it will be utterly forgettable. Anything inbetween is NOT allowed.

[Sabotin]

Do you think that it's enough if they make those two attributes more compelling? The current situation is also that the system might as well have 3 points possible in a stat instead of 18.

[Infiltrator_SF]

I think that dumping points into whatever and still beating the game should only work on easy difficulty mode.

If I wanted to play that hard/one save game, I better get my teeth kicked in if I try somethig wonky like str wizard or int barbarian.

Diablo 3 tried the 'everythig works' style and it absolutely failed.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Infiltrator_SF

[Infinitron]

It seems that for many players, not being forced to give their different characters particular sets of attributes makes it seem to them that the attributes are meaningless.

 

Instead of embracing the wider choices available to them, they conclude that there are no choices to be made at all. I find that sad.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Infinitron

[PrimeJunta]

@Infiltrate_SF I disagree.

 

I think you should get your teeth kicked in if you fail to play your character to its strengths, whatever those are. If you make a muscle wizard and then play it like a glass cannon, you do deserve to lose, just like if you make a glass cannon wizard and put him in the front line. But saying that there's something inherently wrong about a muscle wizard is kind of a low-INT thing to say IMO.

[Mayama]

@Infiltrate_SF I disagree.

 

I think you should get your teeth kicked in if you fail to play your character to its strengths, whatever those are. If you make a muscle wizard and then play it like a glass cannon, you do deserve to lose, just like if you make a glass cannon wizard and put him in the front line. But saying that there's something inherently wrong about a muscle wizard is kind of a low-INT thing to say IMO.

 

I think the problem is that a muscle wizard and a glass cannon spell throwing wizard would have the same stats. Both would stack might, you actualy cant make a "muscle wizard" without making him a good spell nuker.

[PrimeJunta]

I think the problem is that a muscle wizard and a glass cannon spell throwing wizard would have the same stats. Both would stack might, you actualy cant make a "muscle wizard" without making him a good spell nuker.

 

Nope, a muscle wizard would pump Might, Dex, and Con and could dump Int, and would wear heavy armor. He casts more slowly with smaller AoE's, but takes a lot of punishment and is able to make maximum use of those spells that originate from the caster without causing FF damage like back-row wizards. Many of the L1 and L2 spells are AoE that originates from the caster.

 

Try it for spits and giggles. 'S fun.

[Infinitron]

 

@Infiltrate_SF I disagree.

 

I think you should get your teeth kicked in if you fail to play your character to its strengths, whatever those are. If you make a muscle wizard and then play it like a glass cannon, you do deserve to lose, just like if you make a glass cannon wizard and put him in the front line. But saying that there's something inherently wrong about a muscle wizard is kind of a low-INT thing to say IMO.

 

I think the problem is that a muscle wizard and a glass cannon spell throwing wizard would have the same stats. Both would stack might, you actualy cant make a "muscle wizard" without making him a good spell nuker.

 

 

Josh made a video about that back in February, FYI: http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/76165227151/do-you-think-it-is-important-for-attributes-to-allow

 

[Answermancer]

 

@Infiltrate_SF I disagree.

 

I think you should get your teeth kicked in if you fail to play your character to its strengths, whatever those are. If you make a muscle wizard and then play it like a glass cannon, you do deserve to lose, just like if you make a glass cannon wizard and put him in the front line. But saying that there's something inherently wrong about a muscle wizard is kind of a low-INT thing to say IMO.

 

I think the problem is that a muscle wizard and a glass cannon spell throwing wizard would have the same stats. Both would stack might, you actualy cant make a "muscle wizard" without making him a good spell nuker.

 

 

By muscle Wizard in the context of PoE I think he meant one with a lot of Con and defensive stats/items to fight in melee.

[Mrakvampire]

 

 

@Infiltrate_SF I disagree.

 

I think you should get your teeth kicked in if you fail to play your character to its strengths, whatever those are. If you make a muscle wizard and then play it like a glass cannon, you do deserve to lose, just like if you make a glass cannon wizard and put him in the front line. But saying that there's something inherently wrong about a muscle wizard is kind of a low-INT thing to say IMO.

 

I think the problem is that a muscle wizard and a glass cannon spell throwing wizard would have the same stats. Both would stack might, you actualy cant make a "muscle wizard" without making him a good spell nuker.

 

 

Josh made a video about that back in February, FYI: http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/76165227151/do-you-think-it-is-important-for-attributes-to-allow

 

 

 

Weak willed Cleric? And he defends his questionable design of attributes with this? maybe he wants to play dumb wizard? These archetypes are illogical at best.