"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[Answermancer]

PrimeJunta: I've asked what a low int character in PE represents. Apparently a well educated gentlemen that lacks the little extra on top. I want to play a bloody retarded character, seriously.

I've assumed the attributes actually reflected anything.

 

Considering there are no "dumb" character lines in the game (like there were in Fallout or Arcanum") your desire to play a "bloody retarded" character will never be fulfilled in this game anyway.

 

The reason they couldn't do those by the way if because it's actually a huge amount of work, they would basically have to have twice as many lines in the game and they don't have the resources for that. Maybe in PoE 2.

[PrimeJunta]

It's about as much work as a localization, and they're doing several of those. I wouldn't count it out yet.

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN~~~!!

 

Suck it, D&D!

 

Also, "beantwoorden." Dutch continues to be the result of German and English having sex.

[Macrae]

Why didn't anyone suggest simply to make points needed for each attribute increase after a certain point? This would be a very good solution to the current attribute imbalance.

So for example attribute points up until 14 would need only 1, and then 2 for each attribute increase up until 16 and finally 3 for each (just an example).

So this would incentivize people to spread out attributes instead of concentrating all of them in the same ones...we would get more wizards with a better balance of intelligence and might for example..

[Infinitron]

Why didn't anyone suggest simply to make points needed for each attribute increase after a certain point? This would be a very good solution to the current attribute imbalance.

 

So for example attribute points up until 14 would need only 1, and then 2 for each attribute increase up until 16 and finally 3 for each (just an example).

 

So this would incentivize people to spread out attributes instead of concentrating all of them in the same ones...we would get more wizards with a better balance of intelligence and might for example..

 

That's not not what people are complaining about.

 

In fact, right now it would only make the issue worse. You'd be spending a lot more points on a stat that doesn't make enough of a difference.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Infinitron

[Lord Vicious]

I find the entire idea of "no bad builds" confusing. I understand and welcome the need to have diverse OPTIONS of gameplay (e.g. melee, magic, stealth etc.) which should all be viable. But of course there will be "bad" builds just as there are "bad" players who do not bother to approach the game intelligently, on a strategic and tactical level. So these players can make "mistakes" by pumping the wrong attribute or itemising wrongly. Conversely, there wil be hardcore players who will dissect the system and construct "optimal" builds and strategies. Is this "bad", should this be stamped out? That's how the world works, why shouldn't it be the same in CRPGs?

 

It's like trying to make chess so that there are "no bad moves". Of course there will be bad moves and good moves, like in any game, it's only natural.

 

So the entire concept feels alien and unnecessary to me. 

[Answermancer]

I find the entire idea of "no bad builds" confusing. I understand and welcome the need to have diverse OPTIONS of gameplay (e.g. melee, magic, stealth etc.) which should all be viable. But of course there will be "bad" builds just as there are "bad" players who do not bother to approach the game intelligently, on a strategic and tactical level. So these players can make "mistakes" by pumping the wrong attribute or itemising wrongly. Conversely, there wil be hardcore players who will dissect the system and construct "optimal" builds and strategies. Is this "bad", should this be stamped out? That's how the world works, why shouldn't it be the same in CRPGs?

 

It's like trying to make chess so that there are "no bad moves". Of course there will be bad moves and good moves, like in any game, it's only natural.

 

So the entire concept feels alien and unnecessary to me. 

 

There's a difference between playing poorly, which a player can mitigate in various ways (trying different things, reloading) and being stuck with a terrible build (which might not even become apparent until several hours into the game) because you didn't know what you were doing at character creation and the system was filled with traps for you to fall in to.

[Danathion]

I haven't screwed around much yet with the fighter class; is it necessary for her to be a front-line combatant, or is it viable to use ranged weapons and have less survivability?

 

There's a class for that, it's called: Ranger.

 

Seriously, I don't understand why some people think twisting the 'cookie-cutter' so it's shaped like that other 'cookie-cutter' is a good idea, and that somehow because you've twisted it into that shape, it means there are no 'cookie-cutter' builds.

 

The classes are the classes, they are defined by their attributes: a cleric with no wisdom is not a cleric, a low strength high dexterity fighter is not a fighter - he's a rogue )

 

Now, to defend the attribute system you're saying that they are just modifiers - because the classes already have their attributes allocated, using the appropriate 'cutter.' 

 

Really, there should be no attribute system. We should choose a class and diversify our 'builds' through a far more extensive selection of skills/talents/abilities. That would be balanced, everything would be viable and really that's what the developers wanted in the first place. 

 

The attribute system is only in the game because they made the mistake of emphasising Baldur's Gate etc, in the beginning.  

[Danathion]

Obsidian should just deprecate the attribute system and add in a bunch of (class/race restricted) skills and traits so that we can properly build our party. I really think this would improve the game too.

 

The attribute system is currently a complete mess and is causing much more trouble than it is useful. It would take a lot of work to repair too.

 

This, please!

 

 

Just a quick reminder to anyone who feels betrayed by Obsidian, accuses them of false advertising and says that they basically promised Baldur's Gate 3 and now they do all these changes and *gasp* have ideas of their own.

 

This was the pitch:

 

"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment."

 

That's it. That's all they wrote about the influence of IE games on the game design. There was no mention of the attribute system they were going to use or anything like that.

 

So they should get rid of it, since its only real function seems to be to try to make the game appear more like Baldur's Gate.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Danathion

[Valeris]

I guess many people here (and on RPG Codex and similar sites) are outraged about the attribute system cause it kind of "ruins" their expectations - they wanted clear classes in the style of BG2, where mages could never wear armor or use a sword.

Ofcourse, this approach has a problem. It´s premise is: Casters "have to" be physically weak. But there is no rule for that.

People have to realize that PoE has an entirely different lore. Magic here is not comparable to DND. And I approve this.

Further, people are against this entire "balance"-**** Sawyer took, but on the other hand, DND and BG2 had balance, too, ofcourse: Mages couldn`t wear armor for a reason. It was there to prevent OPness. But the system, or the way this system was implemented in BG2, made the unability of Mages to wear armor important only in the beginning of the game. Once a mage had access to stoneskin (and the like), armor was trivial, not needed at all.

 

I assume people have to get used to the idea that there CAN and WILL be "Muscle Wizards" , even if the influence of attributes like might is not SOOO big like someone would have hoped for.

Morrowind had Mages casting in plate mail, and it worked fine, because it FITS to Morrowinds Lore, Game design and spell system. No reason why it shouldn`t be fine in PoE.

[mutonizer]

 

There's a difference between playing poorly, which a player can mitigate in various ways (trying different things, reloading) and being stuck with a terrible build (which might not even become apparent until several hours into the game) because you didn't know what you were doing at character creation and the system was filled with traps for you to fall in to.

 

 

Playing poorly (over a long period of time) means you don't care much or can't be bothered (which, if the game has a poor interface or too twitchy, is comprehensible). In the present case, from what I've seen so far, playing poorly means you don't like the ultra micro-management required for combat. I don't call it tactic or even strategy because it's more than that and all the combat I've seen so far in videos and streams feel more like someone playing DOTA than someone playing a BG1 or 2 game.

 

The "No bad build" concept also means that there are no "good build" either, which means, by simple deduction, that NOTHING you, as a player, decide to do, equip or improve, actually matters in the grand scheme of things, since all was designed to be doable by anything. This goes hand in hand with a d100 system, which, instead of smoothing the random factor by using a 3D6 or something for example to resolve contest checks, makes it even more important, especially with how the ACC vs DEF is handled, majorly favoring getting hit all the time, no matter your DEF.

 

All in all, ignorance (and it's consequences) is not a problem because you learn in the end, and get better at it. Sure it's rough at first, but you overcome it. The problem with this system is that there's nothing to learn, since there's not chance of screwing up. It's built that way at it's core.

 

But this goes way beyond game mechanics, it's a real philosophy of our time, transpiring through the entire game core concept, which goes hand in hand with "everyone is great", "we're all equal", "nobody should fail at anything" and the best of all: "you have no responsibility to take, don't worry, it's not your fault". Basically, we're not allowed to suck anymore...

[PrimeJunta]

There's a class for that, it's called: Ranger.

Unfortunately, no. Ranger gameplay is based on the shared health pool with Mr. Bear. The experience is completely different from playing a ranged fighter.

 

Seriously, I don't understand why some people think twisting the 'cookie-cutter' so it's shaped like that other 'cookie-cutter' is a good idea, and that somehow because you've twisted it into that shape, it means there are no 'cookie-cutter' builds.

Ehm, it does actually mean that. If you can twist the cookie-cutter to make different shaped cookies and they still taste good, then you have eliminated cookie-cutter builds, by definition.

 

The classes are the classes, they are defined by their attributes: a cleric with no wisdom is not a cleric, a low strength high dexterity fighter is not a fighter - he's a rogue )

Why?

[Fearabbit]

So they should get rid of it, since its only real function seems to be to try to make the game appear more like Baldur's Gate.

 

Almost all RPGs have attributes. Having them does not make you appear more like Baldur's Gate, it makes you appear like a usual RPG. 

[Wintersong]

a low strength high dexterity fighter is not a fighter - he's a rogue )

In tabletop? No, he is not. He can be an archer. He can be a mobile DD/Support that brings a different set of abilities than a rogue. I have played several of those mobile ones. They are fighters all the way. Tactically you just play them not like a tank, not like a rogue. Not necessarily like a Swashbuckler either altough this class is more/better customized for a similar role. You pick your skills, feats and gear accordingly, and you are gold.

 

In PoE? Fighters in PoE are more limited though. You can take a fighter and use any gear you want. But if you make an anrcher out of it, he has lower accuracy than in melee and loses the real use of some abilities. It sucks from the point of view that if you want an archer without pet, Ranger doesn't cut it. If you play out of "cutter", you actually lose tactical flexibility. Being able to cope with that is a different story.

 

So I'd have to agree with the idea of picking a class and build it through skills/talents/abilities. Could mean more difficult balance but it sounds more interesting.

 

 

 

Oh, a high dexterity fighter in PoE isn't a rogue. He is a fighter with very good accuracy.

[Infinitron]

I find the entire idea of "no bad builds" confusing. I understand and welcome the need to have diverse OPTIONS of gameplay (e.g. melee, magic, stealth etc.) which should all be viable. But of course there will be "bad" builds just as there are "bad" players who do not bother to approach the game intelligently, on a strategic and tactical level. So these players can make "mistakes" by pumping the wrong attribute or itemising wrongly. Conversely, there wil be hardcore players who will dissect the system and construct "optimal" builds and strategies. Is this "bad", should this be stamped out? That's how the world works, why shouldn't it be the same in CRPGs?

 

It's like trying to make chess so that there are "no bad moves". Of course there will be bad moves and good moves, like in any game, it's only natural.

 

So the entire concept feels alien and unnecessary to me. 

 

Wrong analogy. A bad build would be more like forgetting to put your queen on the chessboard.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Infinitron

[Iucounu]

The classes are the classes, they are defined by their attributes: a cleric with no wisdom is not a cleric, a low strength high dexterity fighter is not a fighter - he's a rogue )

 

Now, to defend the attribute system you're saying that they are just modifiers - because the classes already have their attributes allocated, using the appropriate 'cutter.' 

Disagree with both points. Classes are not defined by their attributes. A fighter is a fighter because he has a different fighting style and different training (perhaps even lifelong training) than a rogue. It's simply a different profession. A fighter does more damage with his weapon than a mage because he's better trained in it.. I don't see how you need to assume an higher base-value for might to justify that..

That's btw something a class system can represent that usual classless systems where you can learn everything can't. A profession in which you have several years of experience that serves as the fundament for everything else you can learn.

 

 

What about chess?

Erm, I forgot, sorry

[Answermancer]

All in all, ignorance (and it's consequences) is not a problem because you learn in the end, and get better at it. Sure it's rough at first, but you overcome it.

This is not different than what I was saying.

 

If you are bad at the game, it's okay, because you get better, or you keep trying and you reload. It's not a major setback or a big waste of time. You can continue to progress, if slowly.

 

If, however, the attribute system is designed so that it's easy to make a terrible build, full of traps and requirements you may not be aware of (like "a Wizard without 18 Int is useless"), you can end up making a character who seems okay at first but then 10+ hours later turns out to be terrible as he develops (a 3rd Edition Wizard with 12 Int may not seem terrible until you get to the point you should be getting high-level spells and realize you can't have any). That's the part that is a major setback and an unnecessary trap with no benefit. That's what some of us would like to see avoided by making all stat configurations useful, albeit only with different playstyles.

 

You can always try adjusting your playstyle if what you were doing isn't working. You can't, however, change your stats 10+ hours into the game if it turns out they made you useless. You can only start over, which is a stupid waste of time, especially to inflict on new players.

[Valeris]

 

All in all, ignorance (and it's consequences) is not a problem because you learn in the end, and get better at it. Sure it's rough at first, but you overcome it.

This is not different than what I was saying.

 

If you are bad at the game, it's okay, because you get better, or you keep trying and you reload. It's not a major setback or a big waste of time. You can continue to progress, if slowly.

 

If, however, the attribute system is designed so that it's easy to make a terrible build, full of traps and requirements you may not be aware of (like "a Wizard without 18 Int is useless"), you can end up making a character who seems okay at first but then 10+ hours later turns out to be terrible as he develops (a 3rd Edition Wizard with 12 Int may not seem terrible until you get to the point you should be getting high-level spells and realize you can't have any). That's the part that is a major setback and an unnecessary trap with no benefit. That's what some of us would like to see avoided by making all stat configurations useful, albeit only with different playstyles.

 

You can always try adjusting your playstyle if what you were doing isn't working. You can't, however, change your stats 10+ hours into the game if it turns out they made you useless. You can only start over, which is a stupid waste of time, especially to inflict on new players.

 

I wonder how 3rd Edition Players managed to avoid this problem... Mh. I guess they read the manual before creating a new character.

But yeah, I favor the current system more than the "bad old DND" System, though the attributes need polishing.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Valeris

[Mayama]

I wonder how 3rd Edition Players managed to avoid this problem... Mh. I guess they read the manual before creating a new character.

 

But yeah, I favor the current system more than the "bad old DND" System, though the attributes need polishing.

 

UH afaik they read the rulebook, gathered all external sources they could find and made stuff like a hand to hand fighter, that multiclassed into some kind of monk to get extremly powerfull martial art skills into some weird wizard that could grow claws and stuff to one hit giants. Also everyone had one level of rogue for the sneak attacks.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Mayama

[sparklecat]

 

There's a class for that, it's called: Ranger.

Unfortunately, no. Ranger gameplay is based on the shared health pool with Mr. Bear. The experience is completely different from playing a ranged fighter.

 

I was going to say that rangers are weird hippies who hang out in forests with animals while fighters are dedicated weapon users/masters, but this works as a reply too :D

 

 

eta: I really enjoyed my archer fighter in BG.

Edited August 24, 2014 by sparklecat

[Seari]

Seriously, I don't understand why some people think twisting the 'cookie-cutter' so it's shaped like that other 'cookie-cutter' is a good idea, and that somehow because you've twisted it into that shape, it means there are no 'cookie-cutter' builds.

Ehm, it does actually mean that. If you can twist the cookie-cutter to make different shaped cookies and they still taste good, then you have eliminated cookie-cutter builds, by definition.

And the result is a bland attribute system that is worse than the original. it might work on paper, but it sure as hell doesn't work in practice.

[PrimeJunta]

That's just like your opinion man.

 

I like the attribute system fine, except that it needs to be more impactful. It's certainly miles better than D&D's already.

[Lord Vicious]

 

Wrong analogy. A bad build would be more like forgetting to put your queen on the chessboard.

 

 

The pieces are the classes themselves. The game gives you every "piece" for the "chessboard", you can't "forget" a class that's right there in the character creator. What you can do is play badly with the pieces you are given, just like in chess when that queen is all but useless in the hands of a rookie.

[Lord Vicious]

 

 

There's a difference between playing poorly, which a player can mitigate in various ways (trying different things, reloading) and being stuck with a terrible build (which might not even become apparent until several hours into the game) because you didn't know what you were doing at character creation and the system was filled with traps for you to fall in to.

 

 

 

The "terrible build" is a result of playing poorly. Not knowing what you are doing at character creation = not even bothering to understand the rules = playing poorly.

 

And frankly speaking, it's pretty difficult to get "stuck with a terrible build" in BG, unless you not only have no idea of what you're doing, but are also actively going out of your way to "experiment" with dual-classing etc.

 

Most of the time it's pretty straightforward to just take a base class and level it all the way to the cap. Straight fighters, priests and mages were perfectly valid in BG and BG 2, often outperforming the badly built dual/multi-classed NPCs. Multiclasses were just as easy. 

 

The few ways you could actually "end up with a terrible build" involve either A) Not understanding what attributes do (and giving your Fighter 3 STR and 18 INT), or B) Not understanding what dual-classing does. Both times the fault clearly lies with the player.

 

I remember when I played BG 2 for the first time. It was my first ever AD&D game (or maybe Torment, IDK). I remember not quite grasping the concept of "negative armor class", or the Vancian spell system. Nevertheless, I managed to take that Fighter all the way to ToB's end. It was the first AD&D character I ever made, and it was probably the best character in my entire party (after Edwin). All it took was sticking to what I understood and not taking any risks with things I didn't comprehend too well (like dual-classing).

 

So yeah, IMO the BG series was pretty forgiving with the "stuck with a terrible build" thing. Torment even more so, with the adjustable attributes and on-the-fly class changes. Really it didn't need more simplification/dumbing down. 

[Utukka]

I'm gonna bust out some optimism. Perhaps some of these stats will be more important in other sections of the game when it's fully fleshed out, compared to now where much of it is gutted/buggy. Obviously...none of us know what might be unlocked in the future thanks to perception/resolve/intellect. Constitution could easily become more important for "back liners" when there's more ambushes/tactical monsters introduced.

 

Just seeing the beetles tunnel through the ground, the escape abilities on rogue, and more have my mind turning about what we may see in the future. Imagine when enemies start "teleporting" into the back lines or any # of other scenarios.

 

By all means tho..continue to discuss the current scenario but perhaps keep in mind for what may be in the future before going full on doom and gloom.

 

1 last food for thought...I think a lot of players tend to look at stats as "dump" stats because they tend to not "accept death"...they have their 1 "conversation" character, 1 "trap/lock pick" character, and the rest can ignore it because they will simply reload from their save point if a character is fully killed. This is not the case for those of us who play no-reload. We need to be able to have others step up when our diplomat or thief is sent to the grave.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Utukka