Health & Stamina, failed design?

[Karkarov]

The class design (actually probably more due to deflection and accuracy scores) kind of pidgeonhole classes into a role.

Some more than others.  The raw stats would tell you a Cipher will only be strong at range but I have had plenty of success with them in melee.  Fighters will always be tanks... but if you have more than one tank character in party you can have one stand off and be ranged and it work.  Your fighter can also go duel wield or two hand and still be an effective tank.

 

 

It would fit the whole "no bad but different builds" philosphy way better than tank/healer/dps. A gw2'ish approach in which every class can cover most parts of the game would be needed. You could also easily avoid most of the problems that the system had in gw2 because you dont need to balance the classes against each other.

GW2 classes felt very very samey and lacked a lot of "feel" / personality.  I would rather avoid such a system if at all possible.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Karkarov

[Infinitron]

In Baldur's Gate 1, I often had as many as 4 out of 6 party members out on the front lines, essentially functioning as "tanks".

 

This "single tank out of health, everybody else has full health" scenario just seems like an extreme way of playing that isn't really meant to be fun/viable.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Infinitron

[Mayama]

It would fit the whole "no bad but different builds" philosphy way better than tank/healer/dps. A gw2'ish approach in which every class can cover most parts of the game would be needed. You could also easily avoid most of the problems that the system had in gw2 because you dont need to balance the classes against each other.

GW2 classes felt very very samey and lacked a lot of "feel" / personality.  I would rather avoid such a system if at all possible.

 

Yes I agree but one of the reasons why they are so "samey" was because they had to give every class the same tools, like for example stun breakers etc. Thats something you do not need in a party, single player rpg.

[sophismata]

 So yea...before MMOs, there was..you know..history and logic

Someone told me that "Tank, DPS and Support" originated from MUDs.

 

Somewhat true. Most of the early MUD's were attempts to reproduce D&D electronically. They really codified the damage, healing and tanking roles due to the way the encounters worked (where a room of monsters would target and fight only one member of the party).

 

 

 

In Baldur's Gate 1, I often had as many as 4 out of 6 party members out on the front lines, essentially functioning as "tanks".

 

This "single tank out of health, everybody else has full health" scenario just seems like an extreme way of playing that isn't really meant to be fun/viable.

 

Agreed, I prefer most of the characters to be warrior hybrids. Cipher, Chanter, Cleric, etc.

[Sensuki]

Some more than others.  The raw stats would tell you a Cipher will only be strong at range but I have had plenty of success with them in melee.  Fighters will always be tanks... but if you have more than one tank character in party you can have one stand off and be ranged and it work.  Your fighter can also go duel wield or two hand and still be an effective tank.

I've been using 2H as a Fighter simply because I think it's better.

 

Shield is probably good if you've got a lot of other DPS'ers but with the BB Party and 1 PC that is not a Cipher/Chanter/Druid, the Fighter needs to do damage.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Sensuki

[Zansatsu]

The class design (actually probably more due to deflection and accuracy scores) kind of pidgeonhole classes into a role.

Some more than others. The raw stats would tell you a Cipher will only be strong at range but I have had plenty of success with them in melee. Fighters will always be tanks... but if you have more than one tank character in party you can have one stand off and be ranged and it work. Your fighter can also go duel wield or two hand and still be an effective tank.

 

 

 

It would fit the whole "no bad but different builds" philosphy way better than tank/healer/dps. A gw2'ish approach in which every class can cover most parts of the game would be needed. You could also easily avoid most of the problems that the system had in gw2 because you dont need to balance the classes against each other.

 

I agree but he is still a tank. His ranged accuracy is bad as well and still seems like a waist given all his abilities. If the system falls away from that play style then he again becomes an unfavorable character. Just a sub par dps with a lot of survivability but nobody targets him so why bring him. Anyway this is off topic and not an actual issue.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Zansatsu

[mutonizer]

I've been using 2H as a Fighter simply because I think it's better.

Shield is probably good if you've got a lot of other DPS'ers but with the BB Party and 1 PC that is not a Cipher/Chanter/Druid, the Fighter needs to do damage.

Hmm, the way ACC/DEF/DT works, I'd imagine you put the 2hd on the rogue instead to maximize his abilities? I mean, bow and dual wield seems a complete waste on it no? Since he's got that "teleport" ability, you can also just put him naked and "port" away or in melee as needed? Isn't the rogue crippling strike (or whatever the name is) a % based scaling ability? Seems to be a winner right there for 2hder, especially if he's gonna crit/sneak attack all the time.

 

Edit:

Hmm, yea...Rogue = massive 2hders for sure from reading talents on wiki...

- Sneak attack for DPS bonus

- Reckless assault for ACC/DAM bonus

- Escape for quick pop-in/out

- Dirty Fighting for non stop crit hits

- Finishing Blow for % based multiplier to DAM

- Riposte seemingly unlinked to attack delays, meaning 2HDers are MASSIVE on this, especially with Adept Evasion

- Deep Wounds (adding all that crazy DPS into raw damage on top of it all)

 

Seems the entire class is designed to use the slowest and high base damage 2hded weapon

Edited September 4, 2014 by mutonizer

[Mayama]

 

I've been using 2H as a Fighter simply because I think it's better.

 

Shield is probably good if you've got a lot of other DPS'ers but with the BB Party and 1 PC that is not a Cipher/Chanter/Druid, the Fighter needs to do damage.

 

The one hand penalty right now needs to go

[Fiebras]

The class design (actually probably more due to deflection and accuracy scores) kind of pidgeonhole classes into a role.

Has anyone tried having two tanks (one main one secondary)?

The criticism against the fighting day and health/stamina issues may have something to do with the playstyle were they make one party member soak all the damage even if thats his intended role.

Should you have one main tank and one secondary tank your adventuring day will certainly extend itself.

When your fighter gets low you can switch him with say a monk, a barbarian, another fighter or have the priest + the secondary tank do the line holding bit along with the fighter in the first place to spread out the damage. While it may hurt your DPS the adventuring day should extend. In theory.

 

Im not saying Health/Stamina dont need number/percentage tweaking mind you (they really do) but maybe we are aproaching combat and damage spread from the wrong angle (that is having the fighter take in all the damage when hes probably intended to be the center of the line while not all of it).

 

Also I wonder how effective a party of 5 Rangers with 3 bears and antelope and a stag would be compared to the traditional 5 man party as you would get 10 effective party members to spread out the damage while also maintaining high DPS. Maybe throw in a lion or something to have more cc. In my experience the one number that is more OP to have "more off" is party members.

[Shevek]

The core system is fine but it does need tweaks. Leave the number of camping supplies alone, double the ratio and reduce enemy focus fire.

[Elerond]

 

I've been using 2H as a Fighter simply because I think it's better.

Shield is probably good if you've got a lot of other DPS'ers but with the BB Party and 1 PC that is not a Cipher/Chanter/Druid, the Fighter needs to do damage.

Hmm, the way ACC/DEF/DT works, I'd imagine you put the 2hd on the rogue instead to maximize his abilities? I mean, bow and dual wield seems a complete waste on it no? Since he's got that "teleport" ability, you can also just put him naked and "port" away or in melee as needed? Isn't the rogue crippling strike (or whatever the name is) a % based scaling ability? Seems to be a winner right there for 2hder, especially if he's gonna crit/sneak attack all the time.

 

Edit:

Hmm, yea...Rogue = massive 2hders for sure from reading talents on wiki...

- Sneak attack for DPS bonus

- Reckless assault for ACC/DAM bonus

- Escape for quick pop-in/out

- Dirty Fighting for non stop crit hits

- Finishing Blow for % based multiplier to DAM

- Riposte seemingly unlinked to attack delays, meaning 2HDers are MASSIVE on this, especially with Adept Evasion

- Deep Wounds (adding all that crazy DPS into raw damage on top of it all)

 

Seems the entire class is designed to use the slowest and high base damage 2hded weapon

 

 

Default rogue build is melee DPS, other DPS classes are Ranger for ranged DPS and Cipher for ability DPS. In previous build cipher was in my opinion overwhelmingly best in DPS role, but some of their abilities are nerfed in this build and I am not currently sure which class is now best in DPS role.

[Luridis]

First: Topic name is melodramatic/alarmist. Can we address things without going off the deep end? "OMG! Games a failure... mechanics are a failure... fail, fail, fail.)

 

That said, I agree in that the brunt of the health damage ends up on the characters holding the line.

 

So, right now, yes it appears that rest cycles are dictated by the front-line warriors. But, that could change with higher level encounters, so I'm not sure it needs to be adjusted yet. That will really come down to what they're testing internally and how that pans out. I suspect they do all that stuff with spreadsheets that cover far more possibilities for encounter makeup: higher level mobs, range and AoE spam, etc.

 

 

All I can say is: At any given time, I suspect the developers are considering more factors and looking at a bigger picture than we are.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Luridis

[Sensuki]

 

 

@Sensuki - I thought the barbarian health ratio was 1/8 H/S. Did they change that with this patch?

 

Nah you're probably right

[Sensuki]

Matt check your PMs buddy

[Matt516]

Mutonizer, you put waaay too much emphasis on the value of the inn resting stat bonus. It doesn't matter what your current stats are, so claiming that an increase from 3 to 5 is somehow more valuable than an increase from 13 to 15 is disingenuous - if you look at what the stats actually do, you'll see that:

 

A) The effects are totally linear. This "15-90%" bonus stuff is pure nonsense. Yes, if your stats are really low, the flat attribute boni will increase your attributes by a higher percentage of their previous values than if your stats were higher. But you don't benefit more. At all. So stop it with the "inns give a 90% bonus to your attributes" stuff. It's simply incorrect.

 

B) The boni aren't that significant. +6% health? Ok. That's good... but not worth hiking all the way out of a dungeon and back for.

 

So please stop exaggerating the issue. There are problems with the HP/Stam system as currently implemented - but it's not nearly as dire as you seem to think.

[Matt516]

 

@Sensuki - I thought the barbarian health ratio was 1/8 H/S. Did they change that with this patch?

 

Nah you're probably right

 

 

There's a lvl up skill that raises it from 1:6 to 1:8 IIRC.

[mutonizer]

First: Topic name is melodramatic/alarmist. Can we address things without going off the deep end? "OMG! Games a failure... mechanics are a failure... fail, fail, fail.)

It's also a question from someone not in beta and therefore posting from what he's noticed so far without first hand experience with it. And so far, I've mainly seen comments about "moderating" it, while I find the concept itself to be flawed at it's core.

 

What exactly does it add to your experience? Why is it even there?

 

Answers to that so far have been

1) Lore: "there is no healing magic, injuries and disease matter"

This is the easiest to disprove: you can go from "1 inch of total death" to "completely fine" in 8 hours and nobody even bothered to provide any "lore" reason as to why camping supplies are limited in any way shape or form and time is clearly not something that matters from what we can see now. It's cool in theory, but that's just a silly excuse in practice.

 

2) To prevent abuse: "no more rest-spamming abuse"

Also very easy to disprove: You can still spam-rest, it's just more frustrating to do so. The entire game system still pushes you to spam-rest if you want to, still based on per rest abilities. Heck, it's even worse now because that's the ONLY way to actually heal...

The current system is like putting "camping supplies" in the IE engine, artificially limit how many are available to the player based on arbitrary reasons (difficulty setting? really?), and say: problem solved.

Nothing's solved really. People who liked using it will keep using it and just be more frustrated because they have to "zooom" through maps back to the inn at max speed then come back. People who didn't like using it will be frustrated because of that completely abstract and illogical mechanic punishes them at the slightest mistake! Who is the winner here exactly?

 

3) To make the game more challenging

Challenging for what? for who? how? You do not make things more challenging with completely arbitrary game mechanics but by actually designing proper challenges then let the players tailor their own reaction to these challenges.

In single player games, all challenges are a compromise by the player between his belief of "fairness" and his desire to "overcome" a given challenge. Some, like myself, rarely spam-rest in IE games for example, or max/dump stats. Others dump stats and bee-line for easy to get magical items. Others just hack save games to give infinite gold or XP or whatever. There is no "good" or "bad" way in a single player game. Each of us make that compromise to some extent, each of us adapt to a given challenge differently and there is no right or wrong way!

That said, there is the "intent", the "vision" of the people who designed the challenges in the first place. That's what matters on their side: what is their intent in a given challenge, what do they want to focus on. Going the other way around and designing on what they want to limit or prevent is completely wasted I think.

Someone who makes crappy challenges and then makes them more difficult because of completely artificial mechanics isn't making good challenges, they're still just making crappy ones.

 

I mean, sure you can tweak the system all you want, but at the end of the day, it adds nothing of value at best and makes things frustrating otherwise and all that tweaking is just wasted manpower on nothing.

 

 

So please stop exaggerating the issue.

I clearly state boost to attributes, that's not exaggerating though probably should have worded it differently, so you're right on that.

That said, the same logic means that attributes arn't that important, and yet they are still flat "pass/fail" for quests/challenges. So...yea...I'm sorry but +2 to stats is massive when a 1 point difference means either breaking down the dragon egg or actually not breaking it.

 

edit:

As a note, anyone tested if inn resting bonus are factored in the story/event dialogs?

Edited September 4, 2014 by mutonizer

[Sensuki]

It is actually because of the Lore, one of the first things they decided about the setting was that healing magic and resurrection would be non-existent.

 

The mechanic itself may not be perfectly aligned with the current combat state of affairs, but it's worth giving a shot with some more balanced ratios IMO.

 

Then at least you can say - we tried it with higher values and it was still sh1t, can we please have something else.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Sensuki

[Monte Carlo]

HP and healing potions. Working perfectly well since 1974.

[Infinitron]

Maybe you should play the game before writing off its mechanics, mutonizer.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Infinitron

[Sensuki]

HP and healing potions. Working perfectly well since 1974.

I don't disagree

Edited September 4, 2014 by Sensuki

[mutonizer]

Maybe you should play the game before writing off its mechanics, mutonizer.

Downloading/Installing right now mate.

Guess now I can remove my signature disclaimer STATING that I'm not in the beta (which I'm sure you've seen, read and acknowledged).

Edited September 4, 2014 by mutonizer

[mutonizer]

HP and healing potions. Working perfectly well since 1974.

Since way, way, wayyyyyy before then.

[Infinitron]

 

Maybe you should play the game before writing off its mechanics, mutonizer.

Downloading/Installing right now mate.

Guess now I can remove my signature disclaimer STATING that I'm not in the beta (which I'm sure you've seen, read and acknowledged).

 

 

Wonderful. Now you won't have any more excuses for being wrong.

[Ashen Rohk]

 

@Sensuki - I thought the barbarian health ratio was 1/8 H/S. Did they change that with this patch?

 

Nah you're probably right

 

 

Barbarian is 1:8 if you take the right talent during level up.