PrimeJunta's BB v257 summary

[Sensuki]

No the jury went out on that a long time ago and it came down unanimous the fighter was pretty darn boring in the IE games regardless of how you played them.  In this game at least they have a important job that while being boring and unfun is actually as important or more important than every other non tank classes job.

 

All the fighter really needs is a few more abilities that give them some versatility like a charge attack so they aren't so static.

Not everyone agreed with that and actives is not going to make the class fun to play, or versatile. Movement and positioning is a bit more important in the IE games than it appears to be in MMOs.

 

The Kensai was an awesome class to play even if all you really did was auto attack and use Kai. Somehow it was fun with just one active omg!

Edited August 27, 2014 by Sensuki

[Fearabbit]

Great post, PrimeJunta! Reflects the impression I got from watching others play the beta pretty well. I'd complain a bit more about the character generation UI, personally - I think that having to select stat-changing character traits after selecting the attributes is confusing, and I've seen at least one YouTube video where a guy actually was very confused by it. (Like - he can't figure it out, even while he changes his Culture from Aedyr to Vailian and sees the numbers change. So that guy might not actually be the best example, but still.)

 

Also the default value for attributes should be 9 or 10, like you said - with the effect of lowering the number described as a malus, not as a bonus that's slightly smaller.

Concerning races and their differences: I didn't see lots of modifiers that decreased attributes, but I think there's something about them that makes them define a race much better - if you get a "-2" to something, it hurts. If you have to play a Fighter with MIG 16 instead of 18, just because you wanted to play an Orlan, that's something you notice.

[GreyFox]

 

 

I agree with most of your suggestions. Except for Sword to Crossbow as a talent, IMO Fighters should have a better ranged accuracy as a base.

My problems with the Ranger and Fighter is that they are too focused on Ranged and Melee respectively. IMO, I think the abilities should try to be neutral in regards to Ranged or Melee with Talents being the deciding factor in determining if the character is a Ranged or Melee specialist. A dual-wielding Ranger and a sniper fighter sound like cool characters to play, but are currently unsupported. That should be changed.

While I like your post, there is a problem.

 

Classes in this game regardless of build stuff are broken into some main categories.  Support, Damage, and Tanking.  It is called "The Trinity" it is used in almost every MMO that exists.  Problem: You can't tank from ranged.  In Eternity speak, you can not "engage" an enemy from range.  The entire class concept of the Fighter is stamina regen, high deflection, can engage multiple enemies.  Every single one of these core class concepts is meaningless if you play them at range.

 

When Obsidian says "we want to support all builds" they don't mean "we want to support playing a character in a way that is blatantly against that characters role".  No one is asking to play a melee mage who never casts spells, or a priest who has no buffs or stamina heals.  So why does everyone want to play a fighter that doesn't tank?

 

The problem is again, this isn't D&D, and it it were D&D it would be 4th edition not second or third where you could become a ranged fighter if you wanted to.  Being a ranged fighter in eternity simply wont work unless they massively overhaul the fighter class and how engagement works.  Too much effort to support one very weird and very unpopular build of a single class.

 

I do agree that all the ranger needs is to have his abilities switched slightly so they aren't "range" specific and they will be fine.  But again, that's a very simple fix.

 

 

This isn't an MMO either....

 

A lot of people, by default, have an issue with this nonsense MMO style of "tank" "deeps" "support" system.

Why is he called a fighter and not a tank?  

 

Also the wizards "role" is mobruler  so casting your buffs and wading into melee combat is going against that. 

 

The idea that a "fighter" can't fight with ranged in this is pretty lame and always was. The whole class seems to play as boring as it looks on paper and there is no reason that any of the potential melee characters can't be a "front liner" so having that moniker on only 2 of the potential melee classes is weak.

 

Maybe there will be added talents and such that covers duel-wield/2h weapon attacks since I definitely don't associate FIGHTER with one who sits there and gets beat on all day without much retort.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sensuki]

I agree. It would be cool if you could have a Fighter and a Paladin, or a Fighter and a Monk and NOT use the Fighter as the main tank but use them in a different role somehow with more flexibility.

 

Currently if you are not using the Fighter as your main tank, the character is not being used properly. Every other class has more flexibility than this. The Fighter needs more.

[swordofthesith]

Great post Prime!

 

RE the Fighter. I would recommend rather than give the fighter more flexibility (range or melee) I would like to see the fighter's tanking powers deepened with more strategic options. I am aware that we do not have a taunt feature in PoE but I would like the fighter to be able to control MOB aggro in some limited fashion to give the class better command over the flow of battle and more value to the player.

 

Right now, the fighter acts as nothing more than a giant auto attack fly trap. You send them in and hope they engage as many MOBs as possible so that your padded armor, arquebus wielding party members can burn down the MOBs in short order.  

[Karkarov]

Not everyone agreed with that and actives is not going to make the class fun to play, or versatile. Movement and positioning is a bit more important in the IE games than it appears to be in MMOs.

Did you really just say movement and position is more important in IE games than in MMO's?

 

I was going to belabor that point, but I will pass and not dignify it other than to say you have no clue how wrong you are.

 

Also I find it hard to believe giving a fighter a crossbow instead of a sword will make him more fun.  Just think about it for a minute.  Now not only is he still just auto attacking with the once in awhile knockdown, but now his position doesn't even matter he just has to be standing somewhere reasonably spread out so you can't aoe bomb your whole party at once.  The fighter becomes even lower maintenance and even less interesting at range, so no thank you.

 

 

This isn't an MMO either....

Very true.  As it currently stands though if you asked me "What does Eternity have more in common with on the combat level?" I would say 4th Edition D&D.  4th Edition D&D which also borrowed heavily from and copied many MMO mechanics.  So would I say Eternity is closer in Mechanics to an MMO than the Infinity Engine games?  At the core level, yes, I would.

 

As an aside there is nothing stopping you from being a two hand fighter or duel wield fighter as it stands now.  In fact I find a duel wield fighter with high dex and high perception is very strong as a tank because they score lots of interrupts and attack quickly.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Karkarov

[GreyFox]

 

RE the Fighter. I would recommend rather than give the fighter more flexibility (range or melee) I would like to see the fighter's tanking powers deepened with more strategic options. I am aware that we do not have a taunt feature in PoE but I would like the fighter to be able to control MOB aggro in some limited fashion to give the class better command over the flow of battle and more value to the player.

 

 

That'd be a sick pitch for some WoW2, not so much for an IE inspired game.

[GreyFox]

 

Not everyone agreed with that and actives is not going to make the class fun to play, or versatile. Movement and positioning is a bit more important in the IE games than it appears to be in MMOs.

Did you really just say movement and position is more important in IE games than in MMO's?

 

I was going to belabor that point, but I will pass and not dignify it other than to say you have no clue how wrong you are.

 

Also I find it hard to believe giving a fighter a crossbow instead of a sword will make him more fun.  Just think about it for a minute.  Now not only is he still just auto attacking with the once in awhile knockdown, but now his position doesn't even matter he just has to be standing somewhere reasonably spread out so you can't aoe bomb your whole party at once.  The fighter becomes even lower maintenance and even less interesting at range, so no thank you.

 

 

This isn't an MMO either....

Very true.  As it currently stands though if you asked me "What does Eternity have more in common with on the combat level?" I would say 4th Edition D&D.  4th Edition D&D which also borrowed heavily from and copied many MMO mechanics.  So would I say Eternity is closer in Mechanics to an MMO than the Infinity Engine games?  At the core level, yes, I would.

 

 

And I'm saying that it's a bad thing....probably will go over well too since 4E is so poplar eh?

[PrimeJunta]

@Karkarov Good points re the inherent tankiness of the fighter. So add the ranged options to the rogue, then. I don't really care which class is used as a base, but I want my musketeer. They have the best hats.

 

Edit: Oh, ninja'ed by multiple posters. Anyway, I concur.

Edited August 27, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think beefing up the Fighter's potential for ranged combat will provide more tactical options than the class currently has. For example, if you have your Fighter engaging a group and that group goes down but there are still enemies to kill, being able to switch to a rifle and knocking down from range would be the tactic I would go with, especially if Fighter was low on stamina. I agree that the Rogue class would be the ideal candidate for a non-magical non-nature ranged specialist, but giving the Fighter(IMO the most boring class) more options would be cool.

 

As it is, I'm hard pressed to do anything with the Fighter other than throw him at a group of enemies and let them trade blows.

[Sensuki]

Rogue can already be ranged, and most people probably use them as a ranged character anyway (such as with a firearm).

 

The 4E class design of itself was pretty uniform. Most Encounter and Daily powers that were non utility were actives that made some specific type of attack with a special property.

 

For instance the Fighter's at wills were : Cleave - hit guy next to you for 3 + Str damage or whatever. Sure Strike - +2 accuracy, Tide of Iron - push back one square

 

Most encounter and daily powers were of the same nature for all classes. This is what I found boring about 4th edition.

 

Thankfully the 4E influence hasn't spread too far into ability design for this game, phew.

[PrimeJunta]

Well yeah, you can make a ranged rogue, but he won't be all that great at it. Average ranged accuracy and no ranged talents. Only the cipher and ranger have above-average ranged accuracy ATM.

[Karkarov]

And I'm saying that it's a bad thing....probably will go over well too since 4E is so poplar eh?

That is also meaningless because it is too late to redesign the core combat mechanics of the game.

 

Well yeah, you can make a ranged rogue, but he won't be all that great at it. Average ranged accuracy and no ranged talents. Only the cipher and ranger have above-average ranged accuracy ATM.

Which I also noticed and find very odd.  Seriously, make a cipher character.  Check every culture.  For a class that's base stats seem to imply is better at range than melee they only get 1, yes 1, culture that actually starts them with a ranged weapon.  Something about that seems odd especially since many Cipher abilities lend themselves very very well to melee combat more so than range. 

 

Personally I think Rogues and Ciphers both should just be given 20 ranged and 20 melee accuracy and be done with it.  They are damage dealers, there is nothing wrong with them favoring neither range or melee, let the player choose.  Having both equal isn't even a advantage as it isn't like you can use them at the same time.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Karkarov

[Sensuki]

Personally I think Rogues and Ciphers both should just be given 20 ranged and 20 melee accuracy and be done with it.  They are damage dealers, there is nothing wrong with them favoring neither range or melee, let the player choose.  Having both equal isn't even a advantage as it isn't like you can use them at the same time.

I do agree with that, although I have a feeling that everyone appears to be getting 35 points of accuracy to spread across both values, in which case values of 20 and 15 wouldn't be too bad.

[Cubiq]

I've already described that you can maneuver the Fighter many different ways in the IE games in my videos (in BG2 you got abilities with Kits and HLAs) and you could use them ranged or melee unless you were a Kensai.

 

Therefore, the IE games Fighter is a more flexible class (and less boring) than the done to death boring Tank Aggro 101 MMO Fighter design that PE has. Yawn.

 

This is exactly what i feared was going to happen when i first read about the the engagement mechanics.

What was the point of having real time combat, if melee are going to be nailed to the ground the moment combat begins.

[PrimeJunta]

I like the engagement mechanic. It actually lets you hold a line. In the IE games you couldn't do that, at best you could block a choke point with a couple of characters shoulder to shoulder. It's nothing to do with the fighter's limited flexibility.

 

The more I think about this, the more I think the fighter design should be blown wide open. Add more talents, some ranged, some melee, and let the player pick from them from level 1. That would include what are currently the fighter's 'base' talents--the extra engagement target, stamina regen, Defender mode. Keep those, sure, but don't force them on the player. You could build a tank, an archer/gunner, or a combination (musketeer). Hell, while you're at it, let us assign those 35 accuracy points between melee and ranged as we like!

 

Fighters would still be low-maintenance and tied to a combat role, but we would get to build it into the kind of role we want.

[Sensuki]

I think the Melee Engagement system still comes from a turn-based design mentality rather than a real-time mentality. There's a bunch of other ways that it could be implemented. The Melee Engagement system works on paper, because well it's based off P&P design.

[Cubiq]

I like the engagement mechanic. It actually lets you hold a line. In the IE games you couldn't do that, at best you could block a choke point with a couple of characters shoulder to shoulder. It's nothing to do with the fighter's limited flexibility.

Can you really hold the line?

From what i've seen the reason is mainly the poor AI that makes them simply attack the closest thing at the start of the combat.

[PrimeJunta]

@Sensuki I'm intrigued. How would you have done it?

 

@Cubiq The AI needs work, yes, but it is noticeably harder for enemies to just move past your defenders. They get stopped and slapped hard if they disengage. It works. We'll see how it shapes up when the AI gets better.

[Yonjuro]

Nicely done. 

 

 

 

Crafting and Enchanting

 

Glanced at it, did not try due to all the inventory bugs. Maybe next build.

 

 

 I tried enchanting some armor. Overall, the usefulness of the enchantment system will depend mostly on how many (pre-enchanted) item you find vs. the number of ingredients.

 

 I like the idea that you can upgrade the armor you already have rather than swapping for something that you find - it, err, saves pixels or something, but it's a nice idea.

 

 The system works but could be improved.

 

 Right now, the only way to find out about enchantments is to click the enchantment button and then click all of the recipes to see what you need for each of them. To make the Armor of Might (+1, +2 or +3) you needed Ogre blood (makes sense and you'll remember when you get some of that) an herb (or something) that I can't remember and an emerald. I think the merchant who gave you the dragon egg quest hands you an emerald when you give her an intact egg (at least, that's when I noticed it).

 

 (You also need money in increasing  amounts for increasing enchantment levels.)

 

  For the herbs etc. it seems like you just need to notice all of them and stuff them into your stash in case you want to enchant something. I'm not sure I like the scavenger hunt with mundane items. I still remember that I needed gauntlets of Ogre power, a belt of (I forget which, frost?) giant strength, the Hammer of Thunderbolts and the scroll with it's true name "Crom Faeyr" to make Crom Faeyr - and that was a while ago. I don't remember what I needed to enchant my hide armor to hide armor of might and that was two days ago.

 

  The only way to know when you can enchant something is to remember the recipe - I recommend writing it on a post it note and sticking it to the frame of your monitor - perhaps that indicates that some kind of UI element to notify you would be a good idea.  The only other alternative is to check recipes early and often.

 

 

Edit: Post was redundant and also said the same thing twice.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Yonjuro

[Sensuki]

@Sensuki I'm intrigued. How would you have done it?

Well I can only say this after having seen the system at work, which is currently fairly similar to the NWN/NWN2 AoO Clusterfûck, except only with enemies that you are "engaged" with.

 

Something less turn-basey, like an attack bonus with melee weapons against moving enemies. This is hampered a bit by recovery time though. Best to wait and see how it feels with the new pathfinding system.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

I think the engagement mechanic is actually most helpful for writing the AI. Engaging/disengaging are nice, simple states to script; pathfinding around possible AOO's has got to be a lot harder. From that POV it works pretty well already IMO; the main issue is the pathing-related dogpile and general lack of transparency about who's engaging whom.

[Stun]

Rogue: Underwhelming. Perhaps I'm missing something, but the only tactic I discovered was hobble+stab-stab-stab. Just a point damage machine, and not all that great at point damage. Sneak Attack needs to be beefed up to make using it worthwhile. Adding Talents that inflict a larger variety of status effects could help too. Feels weak.

I would agree that Rogues need their sneak attacks beefed up, except that Sawyer said something interesting on the "lame items" thread that totally blew my mind and made me withdraw that notion. There are enchantments you can place on weapons that cause status effects like Daze and Stun on a hit.

 

This means that if your Rogue is dual-wielding 2 weapons with those enchantments on them, you can achieve a situation where you are locking your foe into a perpetual Status + Sneak attack + Status + Sneak attack etc. affair that sounds rather over-powered to me. (and really fun! but that's a different point lol)

 

Beefing up a rogue's sneak attack more than it already is would probably be build-breakingly powerful.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Stun

[GreyFox]

 

And I'm saying that it's a bad thing....probably will go over well too since 4E is so poplar eh?

That is also meaningless because it is too late to redesign the core combat mechanics of the game.

 

Except that making the fighter be an actual fighter isn't redesigning the core combat mechanics of the game.

 

Nor is adding tank viability to the other melee classes for that matter.

 

I understand that they went for a 4E feel which is why I didn't back this game for very much(because I wasn't clear exactly what I was backing). If they had came out and said 'we're doing a 4E lite IE inspired game' I highly doubt they'd have made as much and several posters in this very thread wouldn't have even backed the game.

 

It's not meaningless I promise you that...the way combat and classes end up playing are going to go a long way toward determining the success of this game as it is primarily a combat game.

[PrimeJunta]

I would agree that Rogues need their sneak attacks beefed up, except that Sawyer said something interesting on the "lame items" thread that totally blew my mind and made me withdraw that notion. There are enchantments you can place on weapons that cause status effects like Daze and Stun on a hit.

This means that if your Rogue is dual-wielding 2 weapons with those enchantments on them, you can achieve a situation where you are locking your foe into a perpetual Status + Sneak attack + Status + Sneak attack etc. affair that sounds rather over-powered to me. (and really fun! but that's a different point lol)

 

Beefing up a rogue's sneak attack more than it already is would probably be build-breakingly powerful.

 

Status effects tend to be fairly long-lasting as it is, and there are tons of ways to confer them. The simple Crippling Strike leaves an enemy hobbled for the duration of the battle already (well, most of the time). I don't think it'd make a huge difference if that was applied automatically... except to make the talent redundant, which would be a little annoying.