Jump to content
SergioCQH

"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

Recommended Posts

I almost 'liked' that post by Malekith. 'Cuz FO3 was a turd.

 

Except that I don't think the problem with FO3 is the game engine or the mechanics (any more than in the original Fallouts anyway). It's the utterly dull content which completely fails to grasp what Fallout is all about.

 

NV got that, and consequently was a pretty damn good game, puffy faces and all. In pure gameplay terms, I liked it more than either of the originals. Certainly way more variety to the combat than pumping Small Guns and later Energy Weapons and always shooting for the eyes, and no godmode armor.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'll up you one. I dislike Fallout 3.

 

200_s.gif

 

You like Fallout 3?

 

Well, that explains quite a bit actually.

 

 

 

 

Fallout 3 was shiit, and New Vegas was an exquisite sculpture using turd as it's raw material.

It's only so much you can do with a TES style game

Yep.

 

Fallout: New Vegas is a gem with a turd at its core.

 

Fallout 3 is just a turd.

 

 

 

 

Could somebody....ANYBODY....

 

ANYBODY who saw and knows why I linked those reaction images and noticed why...

 

Please just acknowledge you exist so I don't lose faith in humanity and throw myself off my balcony.

 

Thank you.


"The Courier was the worst of all of them. The worst by far. When he died the first time, he must have met the devil, and then killed him."

 

 

Is your mom hot? It may explain why guys were following her ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BUT WHY WOULD YOU MELEE?

 

That's the point, you wouldn't. The magic you can dish out as a wizard is far superior and you get a magic auto-attack with the staff. Why on earth would you even make a swordplay-focused wizard? You wouldn't, that's the point. So you're complaining a concept is POSSIBLE even though it's completely counter-intuitive....you know, just like statting a wizard full with STR in a D&D game.

 

As an aside, there's a pretty badass level 1 wizard spell which gives you a MASSIVE accuracy boost for a short time. 

 

You ought to be able make a pretty cool spellsword with intelligent use of that + Arcane Veil. Pump INT for the duration boost, use light armor so you act fast, cast spell, put Arcane Veil up, charge into melee, proceed to slice 'n dice. When it runs out, use one of those short-distance teleport spells to get to safety. Serious burst damage, with flair.

 

Gotta try that, maybe with the next build.

 

Incidentally, I like a lot of the ideas I've seen you coming up with for less archetypal character builds and your comments on how they (should) be built and played; it's very helpful for someone without as good a grasp of the mechanics at this point, so thanks!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a train wreck...

 

Alright. Longknife never mentioned FO3. Giubba just has a severe reading deficiency and for some reason read FO3, when Longknife wrote FO:NV. I don't know how this is possible, perhaps a severe head injury at some point.

 

But I'll give you all credit where it's due, and say this is some good trolling. But it's also derailing the topic in a major way.

Edited by Ignatius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire argument is kinda silly. I personally wish there was less in game limitations on what you could make statistically....being all 18's or however high you can go in my opinion doesn't mean you are a god...you are just a lucky sob. In real life....I see plenty of variations between people...some people are lucky, they are incredibly intelligent, charismatic, talented, and physically gifted...others have none of the above. They are dumb, ugly, socially awkward, nearly talentless and much more. Life isn't fair.

 

I always found it funny in games such as Baldurs Gate that there was essentially a choice to be made....be mediocre at everything...or excel in 1 area/ok at another and suck at the other. Without "cheating"....it wasn't possible to play a "gifted" individual. I suppose you could meta game and use items to make up for pitiful stats(such as the ring that gave 18 charisma).

 

For example...in BG...to be a "top fighter", you would basically be a dumbass or a social reject or a mixture of the 2...you might have 18/00 str 18 con 16-18 dex and then int/wis/charisma would dive bomb.

 

I guess my point is...I wish the system was more flexible. If I want to play a "perfect" person...I should be able to...if I want to play a moron...I should be able to...if I want to play an average person...I should be able to...that's the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME.

 

How could this be achieved? Basically allow 2 options at character creation: Random rolls(can modify) and free range.

 

Allows players to power game if they want and allows players to be more...average?

 

Options are king in an RPG. It's not my problem if someone feels the compulsion to power game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue.  It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.

 

Josh, one of the things that I think you aren't taking into account when dealing with PoE numbers in general (i.e. not shifting the numbers to negatives and positives and only making things positive, or large numbers, or decimals) is that these "complex" numbers are easy for the computer to crunch but become hard for the players to comprehend in terms of magnitude and implication. 1000% bonus damage? What does that mean for a player? 10x damage makes more sense. Same with other numbers.

 

I really think you should look back at how you're implementing numbers and while considering that the computer can crunch those numbers for you, people have to actually make informed considerations with those numbers and keeping the numbers manageable will go a long way in usability. If people can't make calculations in a first-order model quickly, it's tough to truly understand that system.

 

Ultimately, present the information in a way that most people could understand it.

 

Yeah. This.

 

But mostly the problem I have is that there's no meaningful consequences for dumping a stat to 3. If you build a fighter with 3 Might, you shouldn't be receiving a 10% bonus to base damage (especially with a melee weapon). You should be receiving a significant penalty to damage. Your Greatsword should do less than its base.

 

You can chalk this up to "ok, so we just need to tweak the values a bit, stop whining trololol!!", but we all know it's more than that. The decision to eliminate stat penalties IS part of the "No-bad-builds" design goal. Tweaking the numbers so that dumping a stat carries significant build penalties would go against the design goal.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'll up you one. I dislike Fallout 3.

 

200_s.gif

 

You like Fallout 3?

 

Well, that explains quite a bit actually.

 

 

 

 

Fallout 3 was shiit, and New Vegas was an exquisite sculpture using turd as it's raw material.

It's only so much you can do with a TES style game

Yep.

 

Fallout: New Vegas is a gem with a turd at its core.

 

Fallout 3 is just a turd.

 

 

 

 

Could somebody....ANYBODY....

 

ANYBODY who saw and knows why I linked those reaction images and noticed why...

 

Please just acknowledge you exist so I don't lose faith in humanity and throw myself off my balcony.

 

Thank you.

 

Because he mentioned FNV as F3. But if we ignore his mistake, he has a point that if someone finds F3 gameplay ****, he will find NV's also. Content is what makes NV a better game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Utukka says: Attributes are fundamentally cosmetics, what the character looks like. In TES, "Attributes" is pretty much "Appearance". It's just more detailed in TES games (visually), and in D&D and Pillars of Eternity it is at its most basic form (with more depth to the mechanics): Text and numbers.

Attributes define the characters physique, who they are, their personality, their determination, their smarts etc. etc. some might be stronger, so they are just better at wrestling against beetles. Some are fragile, but intelligent and powerful in their own way, and can scorch a beetle to ashes.

"Attributes" tend to affect values and vanity, whilst "Appearance" (like in TES) affects nothing but vanity.

Edited by Osvir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the idea that certain characters who are too far below average in various areas are simply not suited to the adventuring lifestyle, and thus not someone we can build in this game (and thus no problem with the idea of the minimum attribute score being the minimum required to function effectively in this context and every point we put in above that a bonus we gain).  If I am literally too weak to smack something in the face with a club and hurt it, or too weak-willed to argue back with anyone... well.

 

So go ahead and let every (low-level) character be able to be semi-competent at whatever; why wouldn't a travelling wizard wear armour and be able to swing a sword, especially if she's intending to travel somewhere she might reasonably expect to be physically attacked?  People can be good at multiple things without that stopping them from being excellent in their chosen field!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue. It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.

Josh, one of the things that I think you aren't taking into account when dealing with PoE numbers in general (i.e. not shifting the numbers to negatives and positives and only making things positive, or large numbers, or decimals) is that these "complex" numbers are easy for the computer to crunch but become hard for the players to comprehend in terms of magnitude and implication. 1000% bonus damage? What does that mean for a player? 10x damage makes more sense. Same with other numbers.

 

I really think you should look back at how you're implementing numbers and while considering that the computer can crunch those numbers for you, people have to actually make informed considerations with those numbers and keeping the numbers manageable will go a long way in usability. If people can't make calculations in a first-order model quickly, it's tough to truly understand that system.

 

Ultimately, present the information in a way that most people could understand it.

Yeah. This.

 

But mostly the problem I have is that there's no meaningful consequences for dumping a stat to 3. If you build a fighter with 3 Might, you shouldn't be receiving a 10% bonus to base damage (especially with a melee weapon). You should be receiving a significant penalty to damage. Your Greatsword should do less than its base.

 

You can chalk this up to "ok, so we just need to tweak the values a bit, stop whining trololol!!", but we all know it's more than that. The decision to eliminate stat penalties IS part of the "No-bad-builds" design goal. Tweaking the numbers so that dumping a stat carries significant build penalties would go against the design goal.

This!

Really i'm not playing the troll right now, but you really cannot see the Stun's point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire argument is kinda silly. I personally wish there was less in game limitations on what you could make statistically....being all 18's or however high you can go in my opinion doesn't mean you are a god...you are just a lucky sob. In real life....I see plenty of variations between people...some people are lucky, they are incredibly intelligent, charismatic, talented, and physically gifted...others have none of the above. They are dumb, ugly, socially awkward, nearly talentless and much more. Life isn't fair.

 

I always found it funny in games such as Baldurs Gate that there was essentially a choice to be made....be mediocre at everything...or excel in 1 area/ok at another and suck at the other. Without "cheating"....it wasn't possible to play a "gifted" individual. I suppose you could meta game and use items to make up for pitiful stats(such as the ring that gave 18 charisma).

 

For example...in BG...to be a "top fighter", you would basically be a dumbass or a social reject or a mixture of the 2...you might have 18/00 str 18 con 16-18 dex and then int/wis/charisma would dive bomb.

 

I guess my point is...I wish the system was more flexible. If I want to play a "perfect" person...I should be able to...if I want to play a moron...I should be able to...if I want to play an average person...I should be able to...that's the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME.

 

How could this be achieved? Basically allow 2 options at character creation: Random rolls(can modify) and free range.

 

Allows players to power game if they want and allows players to be more...average?

 

Options are king in an RPG. It's not my problem if someone feels the compulsion to power game.

 

There was stats rolling in BG; you could defo had a crappy character who sucked at everything and also a really gifted character who was good at everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is more of them just not giving you a contextual point to view from.

 

You're viewing the stats as they were in BG/DnD. For example, 3 str in BG meant you were a wuss. 3 Int meant you were stupid.

 

Perhaps in PoE, 3 just means that you are the bottom of the barrel that is able to function. In other words, that "3" means you are just strong enough to swing that sword. The +10% is mostly just arbitrary...they could easily just make that a 0 and say 3 might is the base necessary requirement to be a "capable" adventurer.

 

This does imply however that you can't make a "idiot" a "weakling(in the sense that you are too feeble to even open the refridgerator door), or a "social reject". This doesn't mean the system is broken or horrible....if it means anything...it means that it sucks that I can't role play a complete idiot. I *should* be able to roleplay any type of character I please.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the rest of what you said, but regarding this:


This does imply however that you can't make a "idiot" a "weakling(in the sense that you are too feeble to even open the refridgerator door), or a "social reject". This doesn't mean the system is broken or horrible....if it means anything...it means that it sucks that I can't role play a complete idiot. I *should* be able to roleplay any type of character I please.

There are always, by virtue of the medium (i.e., not PnP), going to be limits on what type of character you can roleplay because they have to write dialogue and responses for us.  I have no problem with a general lower limit being set on all our attributes.  Just imagine that if they're below that minimum then the character is incapable of sufficiently functioning independently for this story or some such.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the rest of what you said, but regarding this:

This does imply however that you can't make a "idiot" a "weakling(in the sense that you are too feeble to even open the refridgerator door), or a "social reject". This doesn't mean the system is broken or horrible....if it means anything...it means that it sucks that I can't role play a complete idiot. I *should* be able to roleplay any type of character I please.

There are always, by virtue of the medium (i.e., not PnP), going to be limits on what type of character you can roleplay because they have to write dialogue and responses for us.  I have no problem with a general lower limit being set on all our attributes.  Just imagine that if they're below that minimum then the character is incapable of sufficiently functioning independently for this story or some such.

But what about my old geezer who uses Tensers transformation/Polymorph to return to his glory days? :dancing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agree with the rest of what you said, but regarding this:

This does imply however that you can't make a "idiot" a "weakling(in the sense that you are too feeble to even open the refridgerator door), or a "social reject". This doesn't mean the system is broken or horrible....if it means anything...it means that it sucks that I can't role play a complete idiot. I *should* be able to roleplay any type of character I please.

There are always, by virtue of the medium (i.e., not PnP), going to be limits on what type of character you can roleplay because they have to write dialogue and responses for us.  I have no problem with a general lower limit being set on all our attributes.  Just imagine that if they're below that minimum then the character is incapable of sufficiently functioning independently for this story or some such.

But what about my old geezer who uses Tensers transformation/Polymorph to return to his glory days? :dancing:

 

Well the lack of Tenser's Transformation might be a bigger problem :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Agree with the rest of what you said, but regarding this:

This does imply however that you can't make a "idiot" a "weakling(in the sense that you are too feeble to even open the refridgerator door), or a "social reject". This doesn't mean the system is broken or horrible....if it means anything...it means that it sucks that I can't role play a complete idiot. I *should* be able to roleplay any type of character I please.

There are always, by virtue of the medium (i.e., not PnP), going to be limits on what type of character you can roleplay because they have to write dialogue and responses for us.  I have no problem with a general lower limit being set on all our attributes.  Just imagine that if they're below that minimum then the character is incapable of sufficiently functioning independently for this story or some such.

But what about my old geezer who uses Tensers transformation/Polymorph to return to his glory days? :dancing:

 

Well the lack of Tenser's Transformation might be a bigger problem :D

 

True. But who knows what hope the future might bring for the old geezers of the world! :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was fast. For those who might be unaware, we implement around a 500 post count limit for threads. So I'm going to close this one down and start up a new one.

 

New Thread.


"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...