"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice?

[Sensuki]

WHAT? I just specifically brought up the wood elf from the backer beta. You know their racial power right? It is an issue.

Even if they do manage to make every stat equally useful to every class (they won't) then you are still getting shafted when you want to play that race/culture you like but you want to try out a high int build on such and such class. It is bad in DnD. It is bad in every stupid system that has used it.

I have repeated multiple times that I am talking about attribute bonuses from race and culture only. You keep ignoring that for some reason.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Sensuki

[Ondb]

One more thing. If we (backers that have access to beta), geeks, have difficulty understanding this system (at least huge % of us) - do you expect that your 17-y-old modern player will understand?

 

This

[Bazy]

I try not to base anything on what a 17 year old would understand. I hope for a game much more complex than what the lowest common denominator would understand. 

 

That being said. These concepts are not difficult. 

Edited August 21, 2014 by Bazy

[Ahvz]

 

All games that you've mentioned have INTUITIVE STAT SYSTEM. IN-TU-IT-IV-E. You don't need to read manual to understand that stat called 'damage' should obviously boost... DAMAGE.

You understand what I'm saying, or I need hamster-English translator?

 

I understand what you're saying, and I still think that if you have problems understanding that might boosts damage after it's been explained to you, you're digging your heels in just because you can. It's not nearly as big of a deal as you're making it out to be, and it's not some hurdle that new players are going to have to overcome, unless they can't read the two-sentence explanation on the character creation page.

 

You can't claim to have understood every facet of how attributes interact in D&D without reading at least a little. That's all you have to do to understand how Might works. 

[Mrakvampire]

I try not to base anything on what a 17 year old would understand. I hope for a game much more complex than that. 

 

lol. I've played Baldur's Gate when I was 13. I played PST when I was 14. And I managed to understand everything. So. The question is... no, no question.

[Ondb]

 

I would like to see an example of modern western rpg that uses something non-intuitive like "Might".

 

In its present state, it would probably be clearer to call it "Power," which carries less association with purely physical strength. 

 

 

Diablo3 dev team try to do it. Might, Power. They wasted months explaining the system and then just when back to STR, DEX, INT.

Its called learning from other people mistakes and it never happens in reality 

[Doppelschwert]

Perhaps there's this one elusive combat stat that I'm not thinking of yet.

 

I suggested to have a percentual bonus on range in the other thread, but nobody seems to care. Ranged characters benefit, all targeted abilities benefit, engagement range benefits. It's similar to intelligence, but different and independent. It helps in the sense that it makes positioning easier for all classes.

[Mrakvampire]

 

You can't claim to have understood every facet of how attributes interact in D&D without reading at least a little. That's all you have to do to understand how Might works. 

 

 

Of course not. But it was obvious for me, when I was 13, that Strength applies to how hard I hit with my axe, and Charisma applies how good I'm at interactions. Later, I've found out, that Charisma basically affects only minority of things in game, so it can be dumped, still I've never done this from RP purposes. Nevertheless fact, that Charisma is used rarily in BG doesn't mean that system overall is unbalanced, it means only that developers should have added more Charisma checks in game. That's all.

[Sarex]

Of course not. But it was obvious for me, when I was 13, that Strength applies to how hard I hit with my axe, and Charisma applies how good I'm at interactions. Later, I've found out, that Charisma basically affects only minority of things in game, so it can be dumped, still I've never done this from RP purposes. Nevertheless fact, that Charisma is used rarily in BG doesn't mean that system overall is unbalanced, it means only that developers should have added more Charisma checks in game. That's all.

 

My Paladin never had a Charisma score lower then 18, dump stat or not.

[Bazy]

 

I try not to base anything on what a 17 year old would understand. I hope for a game much more complex than that. 

 

lol. I've played Baldur's Gate when I was 13. I played PST when I was 14. And I managed to understand everything. So. The question is... no, no question.

 

Then why is it so hard to understand now?

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

You understand what I'm saying, or I need hamster-English translator?

 

Hamster: "Gnaw, gnaw, gnaw, gnaw, gnaw..."

Translates (in)to power failure!

[Helm]

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.

Yes, it is terrible. The design is even worse than in Dragon Age 2, and that is saying a lot.

 

The design of the game at its core is really bad and needs to be salvaged.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Helm

[Mrakvampire]

 

 

I try not to base anything on what a 17 year old would understand. I hope for a game much more complex than that. 

 

lol. I've played Baldur's Gate when I was 13. I played PST when I was 14. And I managed to understand everything. So. The question is... no, no question.

 

Then why is it so hard to understand now?

 

 

Cause it's difficult to undestand why in order to hurl powerfull fireballs my wizards should be like Arnold Schwarzenegger - both good at melee and spells. Why? It simply DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. That's why neither I, nor a lot of people understand this system. If I don't understand what exactly stat means - how can I relate to my character? How can you describe person with high 'Might' stat? When it comes to classic self-explanatory stats, let's say, in Fallout....

We have:

Strength - high strength means my character is strong, he has muscles, like Terminator

Perception - also self-explanatory. With hight PER my character can see and hear better, is more focused, and alert.

Endurance - also (!) self-explanatory. How tough is my character. It doesn't give strange bonuses to random attribute only to make it more viable - everything IS LOGICAL.

Same with all other stats. LUCK (self-explanatory), AGILITY - also... etc...

 

And this is not D&D at all. It's an example of good, logical, easy to understand system, where all stats affect only those aspects of character that is logical. 

[Cabamacadaf]

The word 'might' does not necessarily mean physical strength, I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Cabamacadaf

[Mrakvampire]

The word 'might' does not necessarily mean physical strength, I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

 

It seems that I actually need hamster-human translator... some ppl even don't try to understand what's the issue with current system 

[Shdy314]

 

WHAT? I just specifically brought up the wood elf from the backer beta. You know their racial power right? It is an issue.

Even if they do manage to make every stat equally useful to every class (they won't) then you are still getting shafted when you want to play that race/culture you like but you want to try out a high int build on such and such class. It is bad in DnD. It is bad in every stupid system that has used it.

I have repeated multiple times that I am talking about attribute bonuses from race and culture only. You keep ignoring that for some reason.

 

Because they are connected? Because I said from the beginning my biggest problem was the racial powers. I also mentioned attribute bonuses in the very post you quoted. They are stupid to tie to cosmetic choices like race and culture. Piling on MORE attribute bonuses to races and culture is only going to make that worse. What problem exactly do you think you are solving?

[Enoch]

Cause it's difficult to undestand why in order to hurl powerfull fireballs my wizards should be like Arnold Schwarzenegger - both good at melee and spells. Why? It simply DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

 

 

Hurling fireballs at all doesn't make sense.  It's magic-- real-world logic is not especially applicable. 

 

What you're calling "logic" is just cultural conditioning.  You hear "wizard" and you think "Gandalf" (or similar). 

[Infinitron]

The Earth is round, and stars are gigantic balls of fiery gas trillions of kilometers away.

 

This is unintuitive though so obviously nobody can understand it.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Infinitron

[Shdy314]

 

The word 'might' does not necessarily mean physical strength, I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

 

It seems that I actually need hamster-human translator... some ppl even don't try to understand what's the issue with current system 

 

The problem in your mind is that the stat that makes your spells hit harder also makes you swing your sword harder and you don't like that because DnD. Translation correct?

 

Assuming I understood you then here's why that is wrong. That stat makes you hit harder because your soul is stronger (I think) and also makes your wand hit harder (I think). Having a high might does not make a wizard into a fighter (currently anyways) so classes still have their roles (sadly). If I translated poorly then disregard.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Shdy314

[Fearabbit]

And this is not D&D at all. It's an example of good, logical, easy to understand system, where all stats affect only those aspects of character that is logical.

 

Well yeah, but Fallout has the advantage of being based on the real world. There's no magic here, so of course every attribute makes sense. For any attribute to make sense with regards to magic, you need a story. You need to explain to the player the world he's now experiencing, and what kind of rules there are.

 

I don't know, I guess I just don't have a problem with the idea that controlling magic can be a very physical and exhausting activity. Basically... like a Kamehameha.

And then this type of attribute makes perfect sense to me. The question is, do I like this story? Or do I prefer the one where magic is a purely intellectual exercise? Personally, I don't like either of them too much. I'm a sorcerer at heart, magic in my opinion is something that you learn intuitively if you have a talent for it, no matter how smart you are.

 

If I could choose, I'd have made Might something that gives you more control over the spell you're building up in your body, because as a strong person you have more control over your body. Constitution lowers the chance of interrupts because it's the "physical willpower" and interrupts are mostly a physical effect. And Resolve should increase a spell's damage because it's the "mental willpower".

But that's just my two cents.

[Panteleimon]

 

 

 

I try not to base anything on what a 17 year old would understand. I hope for a game much more complex than that. 

 

lol. I've played Baldur's Gate when I was 13. I played PST when I was 14. And I managed to understand everything. So. The question is... no, no question.

 

Then why is it so hard to understand now?

 

 

Cause it's difficult to undestand why in order to hurl powerfull fireballs my wizards should be like Arnold Schwarzenegger - both good at melee and spells. Why? It simply DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. That's why neither I, nor a lot of people understand this system. If I don't understand what exactly stat means - how can I relate to my character? How can you describe person with high 'Might' stat? When it comes to classic self-explanatory stats, let's say, in Fallout....

We have:

Strength - high strength means my character is strong, he has muscles, like Terminator

Perception - also self-explanatory. With hight PER my character can see and hear better, is more focused, and alert.

Endurance - also (!) self-explanatory. How tough is my character. It doesn't give strange bonuses to random attribute only to make it more viable - everything IS LOGICAL.

Same with all other stats. LUCK (self-explanatory), AGILITY - also... etc...

 

And this is not D&D at all. It's an example of good, logical, easy to understand system, where all stats affect only those aspects of character that is logical. 

 

 

Is there something complex about the concept that "might" is intestinal fortitude and strength of spirit, not just a measurement of your biceps?

 

Magic in PoE doesn't derive from the mage sitting in a tower and poring over spell scrolls and complex formulae(intelligence). He's a conduit for the magic to pour out of his grimoire and aside from some technical bits, what he depends on most is soul-strength, which happens to also tie in partially to physical strength(not entirely, that's why we have constitution) . Intelligence optimizes his spells and their effects, which makes sense in the setting.

 

Use your imagination and stop being a slave to rule-sets that have no inherent value.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Panteleimon

[Infinitron]

This debate really is a waste of time.

 

If all attributes are useful to all characters, then that's good. That's a design goal.

 

But if you can play your character in the same way no matter what attributes he has, with no perceptible tradeoff, then that's bad. That's what beta testers need to be verifying now, IMO.

[AdaMusic]

This debate really is a waste of time.

 

If all attributes are useful to all characters, then that's good. That's a design goal.

 

But if you can play your character in the same way no matter what attributes he has, with no perceptible tradeoff, then that's bad. That's what beta testers need to be verifying now, IMO.

You are contradicting yourself. We are the beta testers and we are verifying problems by debating stuff in this forum.

 

I think "no bad builds" will always be a failure. Just makes the whole choice of stats totally uninteresting and unimportant. If I can just pick random stats and still have a good character in all situations then you have totally failed with game design.

[Sensuki]

I suggested to have a percentual bonus on range in the other thread, but nobody seems to care. Ranged characters benefit, all targeted abilities benefit, engagement range benefits. It's similar to intelligence, but different and independent. It helps in the sense that it makes positioning easier for all classes.

Not that great for some classes though - like Fighters and Barbarians.

[Shdy314]

 

I suggested to have a percentual bonus on range in the other thread, but nobody seems to care. Ranged characters benefit, all targeted abilities benefit, engagement range benefits. It's similar to intelligence, but different and independent. It helps in the sense that it makes positioning easier for all classes.

Not that great for some classes though - like Fighters and Barbarians.

 

Unless it gave you range with melee weapons. That'd be awesome.