The attributes seem a little wimpy now: the differnce between 3 and 18 in some attribute isn't all that dramatic. In line with the "double or halve it" philosophy of balancing, I say we double the effects and see how it feels.

 

In addition, add visual feedback to the UI so once below a certain threshold (9, say) the numbers in chargen go red, and add a note to each description describing in broad terms what the gameplay effects of pumping or dumping it are. Example:

 

"Resolve affects Concentration. A character with high Resolve is able to act even when under constant attack. It is especially important for characters who stand in the front line. Conversely, a character with low Resolve is easily interrupted, and should probably stay back and avoid getting attacked."

Would be nice to know what is considered average. It looks like 9-10 is average but I heard that we get alot more stat points for character creation in the beta than we would have availablle in the final game.

If they do so they should reduce our attribute points as well though. Double the effect of attributes will make us super powerful if they don't. If they double attributes' effects; than they should reduce our attribute points by 25%.

Agree that bigger impact could make *differentness* of builds more obvious. Another thought is that if people want to see penalties, the base values per class could be rejigged a bit to lie at the value for average stats of 9/10, instead of everything being +X even with gimped stat values of 3. E.g. you'd see Might of 3 give -14% damage rather than +6% as it currently stands.

@Cthulchulain Yep, that would also make it possible to double the impact without doubling the absolute adjustment you're able to do. So you wouldn't need to reduce the number of distributable stat points.

Agree that bigger impact could make *differentness* of builds more obvious. Another thought is that if people want to see penalties, the base values per class could be rejigged a bit to lie at the value for average stats of 9/10, instead of everything being +X even with gimped stat values of 3. E.g. you'd see Might of 3 give -14% damage rather than +6% as it currently stands.

Do this Obsidian!

between 3 and 18 it's a 30% difference, fine by me.

between 3 and 18 it's a 30% difference, fine by me.

Why just 30? Don't you feel the builds can't be different enough?

I'm a fan of small numbers in general, in my perfect world the maxed character is 50% stonger than a newb (w/o gear).

I'm a fan of small numbers in general, in my perfect world the maxed character is 50% stonger than a newb (w/o gear).

 

 

50% increases would be plenty viable.  Come to think of it, a 50% increase is pretty much what you could expect to see with max vs. min in their last major game: New Vegas. (Endurance 5 vs Endurance 10 was 50%, Charisma 1 vs. Charimsa 10 was 50%, think Int 1 vs INT 10 was about 50%, etc etc etc.)

I'm a fan of small numbers in general, in my perfect world the maxed character is 50% stonger than a newb (w/o gear).

Right now the attributes do not make you 50% better. We have in fact already suggested the idea that really low stats should start with a penalty so that even though the attribute additions are greater; you're character doesn't become stronger ultimately, just more extreme.

 

We just want the builds to be more different; not better. 

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by Namutree

I'm curious why people want stats to go all the way down to 3. As I stated in another thread I feel like this makes balancing them much harder.

 

The stated goal is for every build to be valuable, I think it's much harder to balance characters that have 3 Might vs. 18 Might and have both be viable. In fact that's why I think they bonuses per level are so wimpy right now.

 

If you kept the same bonuses (or slightly stronger ones) but cut the number of points available and changed the range to 10 instead of 15, for instance (8-18) with 8 being the 0 point, or I suppose even 10 and make 8 a penalty, then each point would be stronger and it wouldn't be possible for someone to dump 1-2 stats down to 3 and then max out all the others, which personally I think is pretty stupid. A preliminary suggestion would be a range of 8-18, much more effective per point, and 20-24 points to spend so that you could max one stat and maybe another if you dump everything else.

 

I get that the argument would be that that person would then have severe weaknesses to account for but I just think that some classes would have a much easier time of that (ranged dumping defensive stats mostly) than others and that seems to go against the spirit of the thing IMO.

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by Answermancer

Not a fan of the idea. MIG is already too strong. Make this change and characters without MIG can't compete, damage wise. Characters without CON are paper. Characters without INT have hyper short duration skills. Etc. I think people are overreacting - the differences made by attributes are just about right in my opinion.

 

I'm a fan of small numbers in general, in my perfect world the maxed character is 50% stonger than a newb (w/o gear).

 

 

50% increases would be plenty viable.  Come to think of it, a 50% increase is pretty much what you could expect to see with max vs. min in their last major game: New Vegas. (Endurance 5 vs Endurance 10 was 50%, Charisma 1 vs. Charimsa 10 was 50%, think Int 1 vs INT 10 was about 50%, etc etc etc.)

 

 

The attributes don't all increase at the same rate.

 

Intellect increase via a rate of +5%/attribute point. You can get 100% increase to AE size and duration at 20.

 

Resolve and Perception increase rate is +3%/point. This gives +60% Concentration at 20.

 

Might and Constitution use a +2%/point increase. So you can get 40% increase with a stat of 20.

I'm curious why people want stats to go all the way down to 3. As I stated in another thread I feel like this makes balancing them much harder.

 

The stated goal is for every build to be valuable, I think it's much harder to balance characters that have 3 Might vs. 18 Might and have both be viable. In fact that's why I think they bonuses per level are so wimpy right now.

What it comes down to is people want to stick to the "every build is viable if played right" concept, but they want more differential between someone with low stats and high stats.  Why not just make it so it is 3% instead on might for example and 3 is considered a slight penalty of -3%?

 

Now you get this:

 

2: -6%       (only possible on an orlan / 4%)

3: -3%       (6%)

4: 0%        (8%)

5: 3%        (10%)

6: 6%        (12%)

7: 9%        (14%)

8: 12%      (16%)

9: 15%      (18%)

10: 18%    (20%)

11: 21%    (22%)

12: 24%    (24%)

13: 27%    (26%)

14: 30%    (28%)

15: 33%    (30%)

16: 36%    (32%)

17: 39%    (34%)

18: 42%    (36%)

19: 45%    (38%)

20: 48%    (40%)

21: 51%    (Dwarf or Aumaua from Living Lands only / 42%)

 

As you can see if your stat is less than 12 (give or take average or weaker, assuming average is 9-11) then you are getting a lower bonus by varying degrees and at 12 (slightly above average) you even out with the old system.  At the highest possible might you are now 9% stronger than the old highest possible might, but you are also -10% weaker at the lowest possible.  The numbers also aren't super inflated because at what most characters max will be (18) you are only seeing a 6% difference which is not super huge.

Not a fan of the idea. MIG is already too strong. Make this change and characters without MIG can't compete, damage wise. Characters without CON are paper. Characters without INT have hyper short duration skills. Etc. I think people are overreacting - the differences made by attributes are just about right in my opinion.

This will not make MIG any stronger at all relative to the other attributes.