"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[Helm]

People react very aggressively when you tell them that the game is fundamentally flowed because it has practically no character diversity, and that your choices while building a character are meaningless.

 

This needs to be fixed.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Helm

[BrokenMask]

People react very aggressively when you tell them that the game is fundamentally flowed because it has practically no character diversity, and that your choices while building a character are meaningless.

 

This needs to be fixed.

 

Do you mean with character diversity that certain builds are worse or better than others or that every build requires different way to play?

[Answermancer]

I think they just need to rename Might and Con and people will stop complaining about the whole "muscle wizard" intuitiveness.

 

Just do this:

Might = "Soul Power"

Con = "Beefiness"

 

Problem solved. Then nobody can argue that a "muscle wizard" makes no sense since clearly to make a muscle wizard you would pump Beefiness, whereas to make a glass cannon you would pump Soul Power.

 

Bam!

 

We can rename others too if they are too confusing, for instance Resolve could be "Don't-Give-A-****ness" (DGAFness for short).

[Longknife]

I think they just need to rename Might and Con and people will stop complaining about the whole "muscle wizard" intuitiveness.

 

Just do this:

Might = "Soul Power"

Con = "Beefiness"

 

Problem solved. Then nobody can argue that a "muscle wizard" makes no sense since clearly to make a muscle wizard you would pump Beefiness, whereas to make a glass cannon you would pump Soul Power.

 

Bam!

 

We can rename others too if they are too confusing, for instance Resolve could be "Don't-Give-A-****ness" (DGAFness for short).

 

 

I for one welcome our new Muscle Wizard overlords.

[Stun]

The people at RPG Codex hate it because they're haters.

They're criticizers. And before you shoo them away collectively, know well that Obsidian devs take them and their viewpoints seriously. In fact, an Obsidian Developer has multiple posts in that very thread. He was literally there to gather feedback on the beta. Edited August 23, 2014 by Stun

[Grand_Commander13]

I shooed the Codex crowd a long time ago, when I was following Age of Decadence's development with great interest. The Codex has a very particular opinion of what makes a game good, and an incredibly confrontational attitude that comes with being sure that their opinion is the only valid one.

[DigitalCrack]

People react very aggressively when you tell them that the game is fundamentally flowed because it has practically no character diversity, and that your choices while building a character are meaningless.

 

This needs to be fixed.

I guess I will hop on this train so many other have ridden.  Its a beta... they have betas to find imbalances like "no stat/character diversity" and FIX them.  YES it is FIXABLE stat/character imbalance is not a flaw, it literally exists in EVERY (even the BG series) game before they have a beta to help find and FIX these types of issues.  From the actual "welcome to beta" thread

 

"As participants in the Backer Beta, you're free to give feedback on whatever you feel like. However, if you'd like to be extra-helpful, there are a few areas where your thoughts would be especially helpful.

 

• Attributes - Do you find any attributes invaluable, such that you would never build a character without emphasizing that attribute? Are there any attributes you consistently dump because they don't seem to have apparent value? Do the attributes seem to skew away or toward different classes?"

[Stun]

I shooed the Codex crowd a long time ago, when I was following Age of Decadence's development with great interest. The Codex has a very particular opinion of what makes a game good, and an incredibly confrontational attitude that comes with being sure that their opinion is the only valid one.

In other words, the atmosphere/discussion over there is virtually indistinguishable from the one that is occurring on this very thread. I don't disagree. LOL Edited August 23, 2014 by Stun

[CatatonicMan]

People react very aggressively when you tell them that the game is fundamentally because it has practically no character diversity, and that your choices while building a character are meaningless.

 

This needs to be fixed.

 

It's probably because you misunderstand what "fundamental" means in this context. You also don't seem to understand what "meaningless" means, either.

 

With respect to fundamentals:

 

Something that is fundamental to the game isn't fixable in the beta. This is stuff like the 2D isometric view, the engine, the art direction, skill/battle mechanics, etc. Once you get out of alpha, you're usually stuck with what you've got. Things like class/character/item attributes, balance adjustments, model tweaks, specific art changes, dialogue changes, etc. are things that can be adjusted in the beta. These are not really fundamental to the game, though they're still important.

 

You're treating a simple numerical balancing problem as if OE had accidentally made PoE a first person shooter rather than an isometric RPG.

 

With respect to meaningless character building:

 

The choices you make in character creation are far from meaningless. It's certainly arguable that they're not meaningful enough, but that's a far cry from them having absolutely no impact at all. Further, your complaints that I've seen so far only apply with respect to combat. It's entirely possible that they have quite an impact out of combat even if the combat aspect is weak.

 

You also have some odd ideas as to what diversity actually is - as if something is only diverse if there are islands of workable builds within an ocean of crap. PoE is actually more diverse in the number of usable character configurations; what's lacking is that there are no builds that are immediately and obviously superior. They don't appear diverse to you because there's no sharp divider of fail in between them.

[Mayama]

 

I shooed the Codex crowd a long time ago, when I was following Age of Decadence's development with great interest. The Codex has a very particular opinion of what makes a game good, and an incredibly confrontational attitude that comes with being sure that their opinion is the only valid one.

In other words, the atmosphere/discussion over there is virtually indistinguishable from the one that is occurring on this very thread. I don't disagree. LOL

 

 

I read a bit through that thread and its basicaly some people raging over everything and a huge majority of people that are not in the beta chiming in. Their are also a lot of people disagreeing with the ragers. 

[Stun]

It's certainly arguable that they're not meaningful enough,

Yes. This would be my personal stance on the matter.

 

But unlike you guys, I'm not convinced that alterations will be made to the ENTIRE attribute system (which IMO is what it's going to need to feel meaningful enough) I forsee them adjusting perception and resolve, because they've already said they wanted to. But that's about it.

[Answermancer]

 

It's certainly arguable that they're not meaningful enough,

Yes. This would be my personal stance on the matter.

 

But unlike you guys, I'm not convinced that alterations will be made to the ENTIRE attribute system (which IMO is what it's going to need to feel meaningful enough) I forsee them adjusting perception and resolve, because they've already said they wanted to. But that's about it.

 

 

Why do you doubt they'll make other changes? Already people seem pretty convinced Might is too strong, based on the math thread someone made I could see them lowering the bonus to 1.5% or 1% even as a first test, that would be trivial.

 

After that they can try more drastic things if it still doesn't feel good, seems like this is one the things they can mess with the most, it doesn't require new art or assets (the most expensive thing, time-wise) or probably even new code (second most expensive).

[PrimeJunta]

Yes. This would be my personal stance on the matter.

But unlike you guys, I'm not convinced that alterations will be made to the ENTIRE attribute system (which IMO is what it's going to need to feel meaningful enough) I forsee them adjusting perception and resolve, because they've already said they wanted to. But that's about it.

 

I think I'm seeing a pattern here. I get the feeling that some of you really don't like that it's actually impossible, or very difficult, to gimp your character at chargen by picking the 'wrong' attributes. And, conversely, that it's impossible, or very difficult, to make your character objectively much more powerful by picking the 'right' ones. Is this in the ballpark?

 

If so, then yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be changed as it goes against Josh's prime directive of "no trash choices." And yes, that is always going to make minmaxers unhappy.

[DigitalCrack]

 

Yes. This would be my personal stance on the matter.

But unlike you guys, I'm not convinced that alterations will be made to the ENTIRE attribute system (which IMO is what it's going to need to feel meaningful enough) I forsee them adjusting perception and resolve, because they've already said they wanted to. But that's about it.

 

I think I'm seeing a pattern here. I get the feeling that some of you really don't like that it's actually impossible, or very difficult, to gimp your character at chargen by picking the 'wrong' attributes. And, conversely, that it's impossible, or very difficult, to make your character objectively much more powerful by picking the 'right' ones. Is this in the ballpark?

 

If so, then yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be changed as it goes against Josh's prime directive of "no trash choices." And yes, that is always going to make minmaxers unhappy.

 

Hit the nail on the head.

[limaxophobiacq]

 

Yes. This would be my personal stance on the matter.

But unlike you guys, I'm not convinced that alterations will be made to the ENTIRE attribute system (which IMO is what it's going to need to feel meaningful enough) I forsee them adjusting perception and resolve, because they've already said they wanted to. But that's about it.

 

I think I'm seeing a pattern here. I get the feeling that some of you really don't like that it's actually impossible, or very difficult, to gimp your character at chargen by picking the 'wrong' attributes. And, conversely, that it's impossible, or very difficult, to make your character objectively much more powerful by picking the 'right' ones. Is this in the ballpark?

 

If so, then yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be changed as it goes against Josh's prime directive of "no trash choices." And yes, that is always going to make minmaxers unhappy.

 

 

I just want attributes to have a noticable effect, if the effects of attributes are balanced proportionally, it shouldn't matter in the current system if the values of all those effects were doubled, it would just mean different characters are actually more different. Currently Might 10 to Might 20 is a measly 17% increase in damage and Int 10 to Int 20 is only a 33% increase in AoE/Duration; so an Int 20 Might 10 wizard and a Might 20 Int 10 wizard play pretty much exactly the same with an almost negligable difference. Letting the Int wizard have truly huge AoEs and really long durations but hurt on the damage side while the Might wizard is the opposite would offer more diversity.

 

Yes someone who maxed Int and then only used single target instant damage spells would be hurt but he already is, only less so, and really understanding that if you have a high score in the Attribute that affects abilities that do X but a low one in the Attribute that affects abilities that do Y you should look for abilities that do X and avoid ones that do Y isn't too much to expect.

Edited August 23, 2014 by limaxophobiacq

[Stun]

 

Yes. This would be my personal stance on the matter.

 

But unlike you guys, I'm not convinced that alterations will be made to the ENTIRE attribute system (which IMO is what it's going to need to feel meaningful enough) I forsee them adjusting perception and resolve, because they've already said they wanted to. But that's about it.

I think I'm seeing a pattern here. I get the feeling that some of you really don't like that it's actually impossible, or very difficult, to gimp your character at chargen by picking the 'wrong' attributes. And, conversely, that it's impossible, or very difficult, to make your character objectively much more powerful by picking the 'right' ones. Is this in the ballpark?

 

If so, then yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be changed as it goes against Josh's prime directive of "no trash choices." And yes, that is always going to make minmaxers unhappy.

 

Yes? But I suppose there's a market for people who enjoy developer imposed safety net chargens in video games. And what better way to do that than to create an attribute system where the power difference between 3 might and 18 might is just about nothing.

 

It's literally idiot-proof.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Stun

[Mayama]

Yes? But I suppose there's a market for people who enjoy a developer imposed safety net chargens in video games.

Well I guess its a balance issue, you can balance a game around realistic stats ( realistic in the way that such people could actually exist) or balance it around min/max characters with 18 strength and 3 wisdom.

[Volourn]

"The people at RPG Codex hate it because they're haters."

 

1. Nor more than any other forum including this one.

 

2. The example being used is Roshan who is not a typical Codexer and is not a  fully participating member. I think he came just for the PE L0L. btw, If my memory is good, his fave games include IWD and PST.

 

3. More than a few Codexers in that thread are defending PE so stop being a hater and take the blinders off.

[Ganrich]

I actually think that the % that stats go down should increase as you dip below 10.  I understand some safety net, but you can't stop stupid... and you shouldn't try.  Hell, I would make it so the Ability screen has a tooltip pop up saying "10 is the average for any ability, and anything below that is bad" and then once the player hits OK  (too clear the Pop up) all their stats are at 10, the get "X" points to distribute accordingly, and they can dump below 10 at their own peril. 

Edited August 23, 2014 by Ganrich

[PrimeJunta]

Yes? But I suppose there's a market for people who enjoy developer imposed safety net chargens in video games. And what better way to do that than to create an attribute system where the power difference between 3 might and 18 might is just about nothing.

It's literally idiot-proof.

 

Oh? I thought the consensus was that Might is the only ability you need.

 

I think Josh thinks of the ability system in different terms than you do. For you, it's a tool to make objectively the most powerful character possible by combining it with a class. For Josh, it's a way to support a broad range of different character concepts.

 

Frankly, my sympathies are a lot more with Josh. From where I'm at, it's D&D with its minmaxing that would be better off without abilities. There's really very little wiggle room within classes for ability distribution. There's no real choice there, other than the choice between pie and a turd which isn't much of a choice at all. If all wizards must be intelligent, all clerics must be wise, all bards must be charismatic, and all fighters must be strong, then why not drop the abilities and just give the benefits of those characteristics to the classes directly?

 

With the P:E approach on the other hand, there really are different viable stat distributions for different character concepts. The backrow wizard can dump RES and CON because he's not going to be hit much, whereas the muscle wizard really, really needs them or he'll go down like a ninepin and won't be able to cast due to being interrupted in melee, so he'll need to dump some stats the backrow wizard could pump with beneficial effects--INT in particular. Between that and the heavy armor, the muscle wizard casts more slowly and less effectively than the backrow wizard, but can make use of  a different set of spells because he doesn't need to worry about friendly fire (so much). 

 

It's different. I find it immensely refreshing that there is real diversity within the wizard class, that it's not just a careful optimization function that'll always end up with a surly absent-minded twiggy supergenius (or girl) in robes summoning, debuffing, and dealing death from the back row.

[Namutree]

I actually think that the % that stats go down should increase as you dip below 10.  I understand some safety net, but you can't stop stupid... and you shouldn't try.  Hell, I would make it so the Ability screen has a tooltip pop up saying "10 is the average for any ability, and anything below that is bad" and then once the player hits OK  (too clear the Pop up) all their stats are at 10, the get "X" points to distribute accordingly, and they can dump below 10 at their own peril. 

switch 10 with 8 and I could agree with that.

[Zack Fair]

 

Let me paste a quote from another user here, which shows how useless the attribute system is in its current state:

 

I took a closer look at the attributes system. For example:

 

Might 3 (minimum):

 

Might 18 (maximum):

 

The damage ouput (and healing too) increases by about 30%, that is all that min-maxing might does.

 

****ing around with the numbers changes the build so minimally, that it doesn't matter what you do. You might as well just put 13 points in every attribute:

 

Might 13:

 

That is just 10% less damage than maxing out might, and this works analogously for every attribute. After you dump intellect (which you should for classes that have no use of AoE) then the advantage is even more generous. I wonder why the game even has attributes, the only reason they seem to exist in PoE is to give the illusion that the game is more complex than it actually is, simply to deceive the player into thinking that his choices actually matter. It is a placebo effect and nothing more.

So why would you care about your attributes again. It seems that currently you can assign points in whatever way you want, because it will only have a minor effect on your character build. This needs to be fixed.

Im just going to respond to you and the post you quoted here interchangeably since quoting it wholesale says you agree with every single thing the post claims.

 

And an 18 in DnD 3.5 is only giving a measly +4 to hit and damage. Sheesh why do melee characters even care? An 18 for a wizard is giving them a +4 DC to spells. How useless!  Are you being serious here? You just increased average dps by a considerable margin here. On weapons that are not even the most damaging ones. If you want to complain about Might go look at comparing the damage boost of fast 1h weapons and normal 2h ones. People are already doing much better work than you here. You didn't even look at abilities that have higher damage and thus are boosted even further.

 

Minor effects are still effects and thus NOT a placebo. Please know what words mean before you use them. A placebo is a sugar pill whose results are compared against a pill we hope actually does something. If the effects of the real medicine do not outperform the fake then the medicine is worthless. Here we clearly have a real effect on damage (and healing output) that make a difference. Yes a single point does not make a huge difference. In DnD 3.5 a single point makes even less of a difference since only even modifiers count. In 2e DnD every point only mattered at certain thresholds. 18/51 to 18/99 was still +2. No difference yet people are pretending the IE games had some sort of amazing attribute system where going from 3 to 4 was some kinda revelation in character power. There were stupid thresholds. Going 18/99 vs 18/00 was +2 vs +6! This was stupid and is not the same as making "every point super cereally important."

 

How big of an effect are you looking for before you are satisfied?

 

Do you know what are you talking about at all? +4 to hit in D&D is a huge thing, especially with a low level character. In PoE, max strength barely gives any bonus. Don't you see that there is barely any difference with a character of Might3 and Might 18? Compare this to D&D characters with a strenght of 3 and 18. With a STrenght of 3, you are nothing. In PoE, it doesn't matter.

[BrokenMask]

I haven't visited RPG Codex, but I assume it can't be much worse than this place. Majority of Internet forums have overly heated debates that devolve into arguments and flame wars. Most of calmer forums either have really tiny userbase or mods in the forum have draconian policies. I suppose it would be technically possible for forum to just attract calm people because of the subject of the forum, but I haven't ever seen that happening, forums without ridiculously strict policies will always have tons of flamewars when there are enough people.

[Namutree]

Do you know what are you talking about at all? +4 to hit in D&D is a huge thing, especially with a low level character. In PoE, max strength barely gives any bonus. Don't you see that there is barely any difference with a character of Might3 and Might 18? Compare this to D&D characters with a strenght of 3 and 18. With a STrenght of 3, you are nothing. In PoE, it doesn't matter.

 

You are definitely right that +4 in D&D is a big deal. Don't how anyone would think otherwise. That said, I think you are making a mistake even comparing the attribute system of poe to D&D. The attribute system in D&D is supposed to really define your character; in poe it's supposed to be a detail. The equivalent of a talent really.

[Panteleimon]

I haven't visited RPG Codex, but I assume it can't be much worse than this place. Majority of Internet forums have overly heated debates that devolve into arguments and flame wars. Most of calmer forums either have really tiny userbase or mods in the forum have draconian policies. I suppose it would be technically possible for forum to just attract calm people because of the subject of the forum, but I haven't ever seen that happening, forums without ridiculously strict policies will always have tons of flamewars when there are enough people.

 

 

The good ones are pay-gated, like SomethingAwful. That's why Sawyer, for example, posts way more over there than here.

 

EDIT: Also why he smirked when asked if he was familiar with RPG Codex, heh.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Panteleimon