"No Bad Builds" a failure in practice? pt 2

[Elerond]

 

Bigger powder charges make the guns kick harder, and you need to be stronger to manage them, and since durability was removed by popular demand, the damn things won't ever blow up however much you overload them.

 

There, done, moving on.

Or move damage for fire arms to Perception.

 

 

You could same time but melee damage there as hitting right place is much more important than putting strength behind hit when it comes to making most damage. And you also could put healing there, as seeing where damage is quite important to maximize your patching efforts.

 

Then we could put interrupt in might as harder hits have higher probability to cause character to lose their concentration.

 

And dadaa everything is solved without any actual changes in system

[PrimeJunta]

PoE does not have multiclasses, so that kind of variety has to be supported using stats outside of the class system. That's the idea behind making every attribute somehow useful for every class - so the attributes can more or less "define" your "sub-class" and the play style that goes along with it.

 

Actually, stats are a relatively minor component of supporting 'multiclass' type builds in P:E. The real meat is in the talents (and, for casters, spells).

 

Add a nice medium-duration accuracy buff to the wizard's spell selection, and boom! you can gish. No need to tweak the attributes for that.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

 

Philosophically, the problem with preventing "bad builds" is that in doing so one will inherently diminish, if not outright sabotage, variation. Variation is one of the principle enjoyments of any game, let alone a game with character customization. Lack of variation implicitly removes player agency.  Without opportunity cost, choices don't matter. No bad builds ensures lack of opportunity cost; therefore, lack of variation/player agency.

 

This is just nonsense. How do you get from "no bad builds" to "less variation"? The PoE attribute system as it is designed(Ignoring balancing right now) is meant to add variation by allowing you to create classes that focus on various sub-types. It sounds more like you're trying to squeeze as many clever-sounding words into your comment to distract from the fact that you actually don't have an argument.

 

 

 

See this thread.

 

For a choice to matter, something has to be forgone (see: opportunity cost). A character with maximized stats can only perform class functions marginally better than one with minimized attributes. This is what all the fuss over attributes are right now. In many cases, they are distinctions will little difference. This is exacerbated by several attributes having demonstrably poorer values for all classes, and that the usefulness of certain attributes are directly limited by the explicit role intended for certain classes. This sums up to a false choice. It's the illusion of choice. If you been less threatened by vocabulary, you might have gleaned that from my prior comment.

 

That's just a matter of changing a few numbers. This is a beta. During the beta, balancing takes place. The current figures are not release candidate numbers. This is not an argument that substantiates your claim, it is simply evidence that you cannot do basic maths.

 

 

Thank you for indirectly agreeing with me. You are correct. It is partly a matter of changing numbers. I never said it wasn't. I never said any of this wasn't fixable. My point is, and has always been, that its current implementation is problematic. This thread is about its current problems, and how we might improve it. If you were less concerned with being antagonistically pompous and quipping insults, you might have figured that out sooner as well. I very politely request that you try to be civil in a threat created to be constructive.

 

If a minimum standard is enforced, the only way to increase variance is to adjust upward. In effect, you have only two kinds of attributes. "Good enough", and "better than good enough". If the degree of variation is small like the current implementation, the choice presented to customize is hollow and indistinct. If the degree of variation is large, whilst enforcing a "good enough" minimum standard, then the maximum ranges will be highly likely to be broken and unbalanced. This is the conceptual and system problem with "no bad builds".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You know what, Indira? I'm getting bored of this wrangling over attributes. It's really not a particularly significant feature of the mechanics anyway.

I'll agree there. Might boosting damage with rifles, spells, and melee makes about as much sense on willpower/perception(DnD Wis bundled these together) affectinghthe degree one can alter reality after offering a fortune in powdered diamond to a god.

 

I'd much rather talk about, say, what kinds of talents or spells to add to make, say, ranged fighters or gish wizards workable

I think Fighters should have a talent that lets them knockdown with ranged attacks. Perhaps a talent could allow them to apply defender to ranged attacks, sort of like an overwatch.

 

I think that a Gush would benefit from Hold the Line and weapon focus, but there could also be a talent that allows less speed penalty in armor. I would say spells that increase deflection, DT, and damage would be welcome additions for a Gish.

 

As it is, I find Paladins are much harder for me to play than Monks or Muscle Wizards. I think showing how far the auras extend would help a lot, as would adding a more defensive aura. IMO Flames of Devotion would work better as a short term boost rather than a single attack.

Edited August 26, 2014 by KaineParker

[Vold]

After reading several posts discussing attributes and their effects, I've figured that none of them talk about the main difference between PoE and old DnD based games:

• Equipment does not have an attribute requirement. In BG's for instance, Weapons and Armour had a base strenght requirement. Here is a link to BG's wiki about strenght.
  
• Talents do not have an attribute requirement. In NWN1 for instance, feats had attribute requirement. Here is an example.
  
• Skills do not have an attribute specific bonus. In NWN they were tightly related.
  

Attributes had a huge impact on builds in games like BG, NWN, etc. But, in PoE Attributes have an effect on basic traits: Health, Stamina, Damage, Interruption, etc. Also, they do have an implication on dialogs/story line. But, bottom line, they do not have a real impact on builds.

 

I am not saying this is good or bad; My point is, stop talking about attribute modification as if it would really make a difference.

[PrimeJunta]

Big +1 on the ranged knockdown. Great idea.

 

For the gish weapon focus... not so sure. I think the fun from playing a gish is that you can buff yourself to ridiculous levels, but only for a short period of time. If you're as good with a sword as a fighter and additionally can cast spells, that's just kind of munchkiny. So I'd rather have talents/spells that let your wizard make mayhem in melee for great burst damage.

 

(Also I liked the paladin. Thought it struck a very nice balance between low-maintenance fighters and high-maintenance priests.)

[Mayama]

Big +1 on the ranged knockdown. Great idea.

 

For the gish weapon focus... not so sure. I think the fun from playing a gish is that you can buff yourself to ridiculous levels, but only for a short period of time. If you're as good with a sword as a fighter and additionally can cast spells, that's just kind of munchkiny. So I'd rather have talents/spells that let your wizard make mayhem in melee for great burst damage.

 

(Also I liked the paladin. Thought it struck a very nice balance between low-maintenance fighters and high-maintenance priests.)

 

Give the wizard are talent thats called something like "arcane focus" and reads: Every buff on you gives you +X accuracy. 

[PrimeJunta]

Excellent idea. Post it in the official Classes or Builds thread maybe?

[Mayama]

Excellent idea. Post it in the official Classes or Builds thread maybe?

Do it yourself I need to go shopping right now

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Big +1 on the ranged knockdown. Great idea.

 

For the gish weapon focus... not so sure. I think the fun from playing a gish is that you can buff yourself to ridiculous levels, but only for a short period of time. If you're as good with a sword as a fighter and additionally can cast spells, that's just kind of munchkiny. So I'd rather have talents/spells that let your wizard make mayhem in melee for great burst damage.

 

(Also I liked the paladin. Thought it struck a very nice balance between low-maintenance fighters and high-maintenance priests.)

Oh, I'm saying the existing weapon focus talents would benefit a Gish, as would hold the line. I think giving every class access to weapon specialization would be cool, but should delayed until you reach a higher level.

 

I like the Paladin in concept, but can not get it to work well for me in the game. Perhaps I just need to wait until bugs are cleared.

[Helm]

No bad builds is such a ****ing stupid idea it's giving me a headache.

There isn't a good build or a bad build in this game, there simply is no build.

[Danathion]

Actually, stats are a relatively minor component of supporting 'multiclass' type builds in P:E. The real meat is in the talents (and, for casters, spells).

 

In something I read recently (which I can't seem to find again now), Josh suggested that the talents system is going to be quite open to fill in the gaps between the classes (which I find exciting), allowing a mage to choose - not only from their talent pool but - from the 'warrior' and 'rogue' pools also.

 

So a mage can be an 'arcane warrior', not just because his might has been tweaked but, because he will be able to choose 'warrior' talents.

 

That's how build diversity will be achieved in PoE, (if I understood correctly what Josh was saying).

 

At the risk of bringing up attributes again (and this may have already been said so, if so, just ignore it), I'd like to see race/culture and background give more substantial bonuses. It's reasonable to suppose that if you're background is 'merchant', for example, that you'll have better perception and perhaps intellect too.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Danathion

[PrimeJunta]

Yep, he did. That's one reason I've been posting talent suggestions in the Classes and Builds threads. I find they're likelier to make it in the game than all this head-butting over attributes. I've forgotten what my opinion was supposed to be already.

[curryinahurry]

 

 

At the risk of bringing up attributes again (and this may have already been said so, if so, just ignore it), I'd like to see race/culture and background give more substantial bonuses. It's reasonable to suppose that if you're background is 'merchant', for example, that you'll have better perception and perhaps intellect too.

 

 

 

Absolutely...there should be bonus (and possibly negatives) for culture and profession.  

[Tartantyco]

Having significant bonuses or penalties based on race, culture, and background choices will simply mean that people start picking those options based on the class they wish to play as. It'll just end up like in the IE games, where any archer character will be an Elf.

 

Race, culture, and background should ideally only affect how your character interacts with the gameworld(In the form of dialogue options, NPC reaction, alternate quest solutions, alternate quests).

[Wintersong]

 

Actually, stats are a relatively minor component of supporting 'multiclass' type builds in P:E. The real meat is in the talents (and, for casters, spells).

 

In something I read recently (which I can't seem to find again now), Josh suggested that the talents system is going to be quite open to fill in the gaps between the classes (which I find exciting), allowing a mage to choose - not only from their talent pool but - from the 'warrior' and 'rogue' pools also.

 

So a mage can be an 'arcane warrior', not just because his might has been tweaked but, because he will be able to choose 'warrior' talents.

 

That's how build diversity will be achieved in PoE, (if I understood correctly what Josh was saying).

 

At the risk of bringing up attributes again (and this may have already been said so, if so, just ignore it), I'd like to see race/culture and background give more substantial bonuses. It's reasonable to suppose that if you're background is 'merchant', for example, that you'll have better perception and perhaps intellect too.

 

Like Fighter being able to cherry pick Ranger's bow based talents, for example? That does sound quite interesting. 

[Stun]

Having significant bonuses or penalties based on race, culture, and background choices will simply mean that people start picking those options based on the class they wish to play as. It'll just end up like in the IE games, where any archer character will be an Elf.

I don't see the problem with that. If the game world's lore dictates that Elves are the best archers, then it makes sense from a build perspective that if you want to be the best archer, you should choose Elf as your race.

 

Of course, the +1 bonus to Dexterity that Elves got in the IE games didn't go very far in making them that much better in archery than a Human. Especially since I'm pretty sure Bows (in the BG games at least) applied your Strength modifier to damage.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Stun

[Ganrich]

Agree with Stun on the elvish archer thing. It isn't a huge deal for the IE games. I doubt it will be here either. An Amaua archer may be less accurate, but that might bonus means his arrows feel like they are being fire by a ballista. The choice is still in your hands.

 

The way attributes work at present in the game means that using the less optimal race may still work just fine.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Ganrich

[Tartantyco]

I guess you're right. Still not a fan, though.

[Ganrich]

I guess you're right. Still not a fan, though.

I use to hate racial bonuses. I still hate them in MMOs. However, they are fine when they are tame in cRPGs.

[Yonjuro]

 

That goal has been achieved precisely by protecting 'players form themselves'. We do not build our character in PoE, we tweak the efficiency of the characters that have been built for us.

 

 Sure, in v. 0.B of the game. Mr. Sawyer just wrote an extensive blog post about the process of balancing attributes (a process that hasn't started yet). Concerns are fine but the level of angst in this thread is a little over the top.

 

 

..

Reducing the number of attributes and renaming them so that the system does not look - even superficially - similar to the IE games (I think), would help.

 

 Very good - a concrete suggestion, but I will be surprised if the number of attributes changes.

 

 A suggestion that is more likely to be listened to and implemented would be something along the lines of how much a change to an attribute changes the capabilities of the character - a  specific idea based on how the game works now and how you would like it to work (e.g. as might varies from X to Y, the amount of damage should vary from A to B).

 

 There are (at least) two good threads that look at the attributes in detail:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67815-on-the-significance-of-stats/?do=findComment&comment=1491233

 

and 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67761-dps-vs-accuracy-deflection-heres-the-maths-enjoy/?do=findComment&comment=1490531

[Msxyz]

 

To all who defend the 'no bad build' approach... you're want removed from this videogame the challenge of understanding a rule set.

 

Screwing a character and starting over USED to be part of the challenge. It is conceptually similar to mastering the moves of a fighting game or finding the correct timing in a platform game. They can only be learned through repetition and dedication. 

 

Failure is part of learning; now people are AFRAID of failure instead of seeing it as an opportunity to learn something new.

 

 

Its a single player game around a story not a multiplayer game where you train to beat real humans.

 

Edit: Also if we talk about multiplayer games here the best equivalent would be mmorpg PvP and the major problem most people have with it beside balance is that every class has one perfect cookie cutter build and does not allow variations.

 

what has this to do with multiplayer? I take you'll never played those old Sierra adventures with a text parser and the nasty habit of making your PC dieing at every turn. Before the advent of multiplayer, if anything, the games were more challenging because they were meant to entertain people for a long time.

 

 

Having significant bonuses or penalties based on race, culture, and background choices will simply mean that people start picking those options based on the class they wish to play as. It'll just end up like in the IE games, where any archer character will be an Elf.

 

Race, culture, and background should ideally only affect how your character interacts with the gameworld(In the form of dialogue options, NPC reaction, alternate quest solutions, alternate quests).

So burly dwarves should be as nimble as a wild elf and gnomes should be as strong as humans, eh?

 

What's wrong with introducing a little differentiation? If anything, it brings more, interesting variations to the table and... challenges.

[Seari]

 

 Especially since I'm pretty sure Bows (in the BG games at least) applied your Strength modifier to damage.

I wish they did that. But unfortunately in BG2 there's no damage modifier from stats for ranged weapons, except strength for slings and I think a throwing hammer. You only get thac0 from dex, nothing else.

[Danathion]

 

 

 

At the risk of bringing up attributes again (and this may have already been said so, if so, just ignore it), I'd like to see race/culture and background give more substantial bonuses. It's reasonable to suppose that if you're background is 'merchant', for example, that you'll have better perception and perhaps intellect too.

 

 

 

Absolutely...there should be bonus (and possibly negatives) for culture and profession.  

 

 

Particularly for 'background' as, presently, that choice seems really only for the sake of rp - I understand that 'culture' has an impact on dialogue, is the same true of 'background'?

 

 

 

 

Actually, stats are a relatively minor component of supporting 'multiclass' type builds in P:E. The real meat is in the talents (and, for casters, spells).

 

In something I read recently (which I can't seem to find again now), Josh suggested that the talents system is going to be quite open to fill in the gaps between the classes (which I find exciting), allowing a mage to choose - not only from their talent pool but - from the 'warrior' and 'rogue' pools also.

 

So a mage can be an 'arcane warrior', not just because his might has been tweaked but, because he will be able to choose 'warrior' talents.

 

That's how build diversity will be achieved in PoE, (if I understood correctly what Josh was saying).

 

At the risk of bringing up attributes again (and this may have already been said so, if so, just ignore it), I'd like to see race/culture and background give more substantial bonuses. It's reasonable to suppose that if you're background is 'merchant', for example, that you'll have better perception and perhaps intellect too.

 

Like Fighter being able to cherry pick Ranger's bow based talents, for example? That does sound quite interesting. 

 

 

That's how I understood it.

 

 

 

..

Reducing the number of attributes and renaming them so that the system does not look - even superficially - similar to the IE games (I think), would help.

 

 Very good - a concrete suggestion, but I will be surprised if the number of attributes changes.

 

 

 

Admittedly, I don't know how difficult it would be but I made the suggestion in the thread:

 

'Might' and 'Constitution' govern 'Fortitude Defence' - combine and name the attribute: 'Fortitude'

'Dexterity' and 'Perception' govern 'Reflex Defence' - combine and name the attribute: 'Reflex'

'Intellect' and 'Resolve' govern 'Will Defence' - combine and name the attribute: 'Will'

 

That combines the 3 'dump' stats with the 'must have' ones - it's not changing anything in terms of the defence system, other than some balancing that I assume it already needs. If it is possible (and I accept it may not be), to divorce magic damage from 'Might' and move it to 'Will' that would solve a lot of problems (for the people who have problems). Though magic damage being effected by an attribute called 'Fortitude' should hardly be anymore vexing than it is, that it's being governed by one called 'Might' -  They're more or less the same thing.

[Yonjuro]

 

Admittedly, I don't know how difficult it would be but I made the suggestion in the thread:

 

'Might' and 'Constitution' govern 'Fortitude Defence' - combine and name the attribute: 'Fortitude'

'Dexterity' and 'Perception' govern 'Reflex Defence' - combine and name the attribute: 'Reflex'

'Intellect' and 'Resolve' govern 'Will Defence' - combine and name the attribute: 'Will'

 

That combines the 3 'dump' stats with the 'must have' ones - it's not changing anything in terms of the defence system, other than some balancing that I assume it already needs. If it is possible (and I accept it may not be), to divorce magic damage from 'Might' and move it to 'Will' that would solve a lot of problems (for the people who have problems). Though magic damage being effected by an attribute called 'Fortitude' should hardly be anymore vexing than it is, that it's being governed by one called 'Might' -  They're more or less the same thing.

 

 

 

 Hmm, yeah, that might be better with the current effective range of the attributes.

 

 I think the reason that Perception and Resolve seem under powered now is that the other stats all directly attack or defend against deflection.

 

 Resolve and Perception do too, but indirectly and not as much (or, at least, it is harder to quantify their effect w.r.t deflection).  Perception could be made OP - use a fast weapon and make the stat sufficiently powerful and an opponent will never get an attack off. If that were the case, Resolve would be necessary too.