The current system confuses a lot of players, it would be easier if something between 8-10 would be called average with zero bonus displayed. Lower stats would display for example -10% damage and higher stats +x% damage. 

This would seem to make sense. Though the other option, or perhaps an option that can be paired is to be able to hold down the increment/decrement button so you can min/max a skill without having to click 15 times!

It would only confuse people used to D20 or similar. There's plenty of systems where 0 attribute = 0 bonus. And IMO, that makes a lot more intuitive sense.

If anything, even if not changing the numbers, it should be done for a sake of better presentation. As for now every character starts with a huge pool of points and stats of a squirrel. Showing players a "medium" and allowing to dump some numbers to a "handicapped" character would serve as sort of a guideline of building characters.

Maybe different classes can even start with points distributed a little, 1-4 points, as makes sense to their class (with option to get those points back ofc).

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by Shadenuat

Yes please. As I suggested here allready two days ago: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67679-making-attributes-more-impactfull-and-interesting/

 

Did not seem to interest people much when I posted. But I see there are fellows who support this idea.

 

Also the averages vary dependend on race. It would make the step of distributing attributes more memorable I think.

 

Total suport for the idea from me! ^^

 

regards

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by derriesen

...

 

am not getting the point. range o' abilities is 3-18 or 5-20 or whatever. am not seeing a need to let folks know that middle numbers is "average."

 

*chuckle*

 

somewheres on the ability generation tab, obsidian developers may add the following: 8-10 is an average ability score for a human character. 

 

problem solved? 

 

a certain amount o' hand holding may benefit new players, but am of the opinion that some folks is going a bit overboard.

 

HA! Good Fun!

For me this is more about the convenience factor of not having to click so often.

For me this is more about the convenience factor of not having to click so often.

that is a genuine concern? is something you see worth spending any resources 'pon? 

 

well, am guessing that once absolutely all the bugs is fixed and the serious balance concerns is addressed, if the developers has nothing better to do, then we can see them setting initial default scores at 8.

 

...

 

is so far down our list o' genuine concerns that it don't even bear mentioning.

 

HA! Good Fun!

For me this is more about the convenience factor of not having to click so often.

 

 

: |

 

For me this is more about the convenience factor of not having to click so often.

that is a genuine concern? is something you see worth spending any resources 'pon? 

 

well, am guessing that once absolutely all the bugs is fixed and the serious balance concerns is addressed, if the developers has nothing better to do, then we can see them setting initial default scores at 8.

 

...

 

is so far down our list o' genuine concerns that it don't even bear mentioning.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Don't think this qualifies as "development". Get some 1st week intern to spend 10 minutes in a configuration file to change starting values from 3 to 10, and lower the attribute pool accordingly (i.e. wouldn't take any "development" resources, per say).

 

Further, a lot of the discussion that happens on these boards is theoretical. I'm not saying OE should put this as priority 1 or anything, and I would be rather dismayed if they did that. It probably shouldn't even been in the top 100 priorities, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it!

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by Marceror

The current system confuses a lot of players, it would be easier if something between 8-10 would be called average with zero bonus displayed. Lower stats would display for example -10% damage and higher stats +x% damage. 

That system is useless if the devs don't want to be -X stuff. The current system seems to be more of building competence in their attributes. Instead of munchkin your way up in an attribute (let's say Might) by gimping yourself in another (let's say Intelect), now you can munchkin your way up in an attribute by simply not being as competent in another. I consider quite different having a minor bonus than to have a penalty.

 

I don't see why people gets confused by the system. Beyond "I'm expecting it to work like D&D", there shouldn't be reason for that. Add points, get bigger bonus. Simple. It's not like D&D: Int = 3 minimum for intelligent life and stuff like that.

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by Wintersong

Really, the thing I'm more interested in seeing is the option to hold the increment/decrement button to have them values continue to increase/decrease, respectively. I'm turning into an old fart, and could do without the extraneous clicking.

is surreal that we is bothering to discuss this.

 

*sigh*

 

that being said, we prefer no set or established average scores. if developers give an "official" average, more than a few folks will be reluctant to drop scores lower than the average. who wants to be below average, particular if you is a new player?

 

the absence o' developer approved average lessens, if only by a small amount, the likelihood o' uniformity. 

 

and again, ANY effort to change the status quo is a waste from our pov.

 

HA! Good Fun!

is surreal that we is bothering to discuss this.

 

*sigh*

 

that being said, we prefer no set or established average scores. if developers give an "official" average, more than a few folks will be reluctant to drop scores lower than the average. who wants to be below average, particular if you is a new player?

 

the absence o' developer approved average lessens, if only by a small amount, the likelihood o' uniformity. 

 

and again, ANY effort to change the status quo is a waste from our pov.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Surreal eh? Pretty good word for an orc, even one with divine parentage.

 

Meh. What you are going to do? You don't personally care about this. Someone else on an internet forum does. Nothing to get worked up over, in my estimation. Though us evil human clerics do tend to see things differently than evil orc barbarians. I get that you have to do your "rage" thing every so often!

I agree with this suggestion completely. I also suggested it in the general suggestions thread.

I think people are looking at it from dnd perspective which is understandable. 9 or below in something always resulted in a negative to something and 10 was the norm because u wasnt getting any or positives.

this system however isnt like that, each point u always gain something without being subjected to having a minus. U put a single point into to str, u gained damage. U arent subjected to any loses. In d20 u have to put points into strength up to 10 so u dont suffer any penalties such as a -to hit and dmg. That minus situation is taken out.

yes u are still conaidered not strong and will suffer against againt dmg outputs and whatnots, basically its the very same as d20 BUT without the minus to hit and dmg.

Ex. Player uses a longsword and we will say its a 1d8 dmg. In d20 with 9 or lower strength, that 1d8 will atk and dmg such as 1d8-(x) for dmg and 1d20-(x) for attack. In PoE, it would be with same stats, 1d8+(x%).

 

So dont think that 10 is the norm, think of any point gained after base stats is a "gain without the minus penalty" from teh d20 system.

1) not an orc

 

bioware depicted as a half-orc as a joke

 

2) not worked up

 

is simply... stoopid. is like folks arguing over game trees. some saying bark is too light to be oak, but leaves look oak. should make leaves appropriately birch-like to avoid immersion ruin. is just... stoopid. Gromnir is observing that such stuff is stoopid, but we has been watching these boards too long to get worked up 'bout such predictably inane issues.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Oh, come on. Just go into your berserker rage. You know you want to.

excessive use o' emoticons can push us to the point where e become mildly disappointed... is as close to rage as you is gonna get. 

 

current state requires an extra second or two o' clicking for folks who prefer more normalized builds? that is the complaint?

 

*sigh*

 

really?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir Il-Khan has mellowed it seems. Shall have to place my hope in Dorn Il-Khan (Note the lack of emoticon).

Gromnir Il-Khan has mellowed it seems. Shall have to place my hope in Dorn Il-Khan (Note the lack of emoticon).

we never could get worked-up over silly. is one o' our few redeeming character traits. 

 

...

 

perhaps that is why bio made so that we were the only bhaalspawn sensible enough to figure out melissan's plan.  or perhaps dave couldn't figure out a way to work us into the game as a flatulent xvart. who knows?  regardless, priority for this suggestion should come right behind visible shoelaces on footwear.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I would actually like to see attributes start at 10 with the option to lower them as well. It just "feels" better. I'm not even sure why.

I think part of the problem is that there isn't any diminishing returns for having extreme stats.

18 might as twice as good as the 9 might and costs twice as much.

Why not maximise stats you want and leave rest as 3? Extreme strategies are "generally" much more succesful than generalist.

Having higher levels cost more (18 being 3x more expensive than 9) or having it being "only" 50% better than 9 would encourage spreading points between stats.

 

Otherwise I can't see reason to not put 18 con on close-combat guys AND 3 for mages/archers.

I think part of the problem is that there isn't any diminishing returns for having extreme stats.

18 might as twice as good as the 9 might and costs twice as much.

Why not maximise stats you want and leave rest as 3? Extreme strategies are "generally" much more succesful than generalist.

Having higher levels cost more (18 being 3x more expensive than 9) or having it being "only" 50% better than 9 would encourage spreading points between stats.

 

Otherwise I can't see reason to not put 18 con on close-combat guys AND 3 for mages/archers.

that topic is unrelated to this thread, but the answer is s'posed that all abilities is of equal importance to all builds.  for instance, our ranger archer discovered very quick that low constitution were a bad idea as our animal companion transmitted damage to us. similarly, constitution represents your stamina pool, and so characters that use stamina regardless o' whether they is front line or not, will need high constitution.

 

similarly, intellect affects size o' aoe and duration o' powhaz. if your barbarian or fighter has chosen abilities that does aoe damage, then a low intellect will be a handicap. 

 

perception has a significant impact on chance to interrupt enemy actions, which includes combat actions and spells. am suspecting that perception is vast under appreciated but as we have no feedback as to how/when it works, it is becoming a dump stat.

 

ideally, there should be no obvious dump stats for any PoE class.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 23, 201411 yr by Gromnir

I think part of the problem is that there isn't any diminishing returns for having extreme stats.

18 might as twice as good as the 9 might and costs twice as much.

Why not maximise stats you want and leave rest as 3? Extreme strategies are "generally" much more succesful than generalist.

Having higher levels cost more (18 being 3x more expensive than 9) or having it being "only" 50% better than 9 would encourage spreading points between stats.

 

Otherwise I can't see reason to not put 18 con on close-combat guys AND 3 for mages/archers.

I don't think this is actually a problem. Why is it bad if players are maximizing the attributes they want? Is that something that actually needs to be discouraged?